Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 221 posts

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#161

Post by CydeWeys »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #120
CydeWeys wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bridge is unfortunately rife with cheating at the highest levels. It's simply too easy to communicate information with your partner that you're not allowed to through subtle signals, and this is very hard to police except at the macro level using a statistical analysis of many games to determine if it seems like players are acting on more information than they should have. The only way to play Bridge without cheating…

> The only way to play Bridge without cheating is to isolate each player in a separate room, confiscate all electronics, and have them play on provided computers running electronic Bridge that only transmits bids and cards played. You'll still have "cheating" in this scenario. The rules of bridge consider it to be cheating if partners have a bidding convention that they don't explain to the other team. It's stupid, b…

Oof. The game itself just doesn't lend itself to fair competitive play owing to its very nature. It's like how the overhead press was removed as a powerlifting lift in competition: It's just not possible to judge fairly (too easy to cheat using your legs).

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#162

Post by edflsafoiewq »

Alupis wrote: post #132
apta wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is why gambling should be banned. Just because a couple of people "agree" on something, doesn't make it rational or legal.

> And this is why gambling should be banned How do you propose to enforce this? If these two people had simply gambled the same way, and the loser took out the mortgage and paid the winner, nobody would even know. It's illegal to gamble where I live, yet every year my friends and I place bets on major sporting events. The solution to problems isn't always more government. Particularly when the proposed laws are total…

> How do you propose to enforce this?

Don't legally recognize gambling debts. If people lose a bet they can pay it if they want to, but the law wouldn't recognize or enforce the debt.

This appears to be basically what happened in this case anyway.

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#163

Post by surround »

The ruling seems to have a lot of ambiguity. At what point does a game of skill become a game of chance? What amount of money is considered “excessive?”

Is such ambiguity normal for court rulings? (Genuine question - I’m not super familiar with legal stuff)

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#164

Post by NikolaeVarius »

valuearb wrote: post #158
flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wagers on games of skill are not a gamble. Gambling can only be performed with games of chance.

Almost all gambling involves a strong element of skill. Horse racing, poker, blackjack, even casino games like slots have an element of skill.

While I agree that many casino games have skill involved, I'm pretty sure slots literally has no skill involved outside of learning if there is a issue with the random number generator.

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#165

Post by liamcardenas »

jstanley wrote: post #111
liamcardenas wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the roles were reversed, I would have a similar criticism of the other guy. Clearly, the loser didn’t want to pay because he contested it in court — and the victor could have forgiven the debt. I wouldn’t even make my friend pay me back for lunch if they forgot their wallet — let alone put them through financial hardship for such a trivial, low-effort event as a game of RPS.

> I wouldn’t even make my friend pay me back for lunch if they forgot their wallet — let alone put them through financial hardship for such a trivial, low-effort event as a game of RPS. That's a bit different. Your friend is presumably not deliberately forgetting his wallet while eating $500k lunches, and if he was I bet you'd expect him to pay you back. And the game of Rock Paper Scissors may be trivial and low-effo…

This is a fair point. Part of the reason I would not make this bet in the first place is because I wouldn’t want the put myself into a situation where I either lose lots of money or risk causing financial hardship on another person. It’s lose-lose, in my opinion (I don’t think it’s worth $500k).

I understand how people can reasonably disagree about this and I take back calling him a jerk (although I hope I would not behave the same way in his circumstance). I also lack information about the specifics of what happened.

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#166

Post by rapind »

ramblerman wrote: post #139
flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #26

>The court also upheld the lower court's conclusion that the $517,000 wager was excessive. Quebec courts are not arguing that Rock Paper Scissors is not a game of skill. They only ruled that the bet was "excessive" which is against the law. IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho. I am thoroughly impressed that the loser actually made good on their commitment thoug…

> IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho. IANAL either but to me the law/government is there to uphold contracts. Not judge if they are smart or deemed a good idea.

Insanity can be written into contracts. Like an employer who states you aren't allowed to write code for anyone else for at least 5 years after termination.

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#167

Post by elwell »

sneak wrote: post #121
elwell wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically everything is a 'game of chance'. Even being an employee. Usually the odds are pretty high for getting your paycheck (~99.999% maybe).

I think perhaps you vastly underestimate employee turnover.

My estimate was predicated on employment. If you don't have your job anymore, then it's of course 0% (and you are well aware of your $0 EV). The complement equals "company ceases to exist" + "banking errors" + "getting laid off without receiving your last paycheck".

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#169

Post by vl »

CydeWeys wrote: post #161
thaumasiotes wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way to play Bridge without cheating is to isolate each player in a separate room, confiscate all electronics, and have them play on provided computers running electronic Bridge that only transmits bids and cards played. You'll still have "cheating" in this scenario. The rules of bridge consider it to be cheating if partners have a bidding convention that they don't explain to the other team. It's stupid, b…

Oof. The game itself just doesn't lend itself to fair competitive play owing to its very nature. It's like how the overhead press was removed as a powerlifting lift in competition: It's just not possible to judge fairly (too easy to cheat using your legs).

This I don’t agree with: they should have left it as leg-assisted overhead press. So what that you helped with your back and legs? It’s a full-body activity anyway.

Re: 500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court

#170

Post by gbacon »

Tsarbomb wrote: post #146
ramblerman wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IANAL, but betting half a million dollars on three hand gestures qualifies as excessive imho. IANAL either but to me the law/government is there to uphold contracts. Not judge if they are smart or deemed a good idea.

This is such a fantastically American point of view.

It derives from another: MYOB.
Post reply on HN