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

191–200 of 221 posts

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

#191

Post by btilly »

valuearb wrote: post #154
btilly wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are variants. The poker variants that are popular are popular exactly because there is so much more chance. The edge that skill gives is less in Texas Holdem than Omaha Hi-Lo. Which is why you see the former more than the latter.

Not really. Source: Omaha High Low (8 or better) has become surprisingly popular at my local casino, and the edge for skilled players does not seem to be any greater. Limit poker has thinner edges than no limit, but NL has been the ocular game.

Yes, really.

Source, my brother-in-law is a WSOP champion in Omaha Hi-Lo. At low levels of play, the edge for skill isn't so big, but once you get someone who knows the game the edge goes up.

Tip, one of the best positions to be in is going for both hi and lo while an opponent thinks they have a lock on one of those. They feel committed to matching any bet, but you're going to walk away with 3/4 of the pot.

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

#192

Post by jpambrun »

danso wrote: post #110
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…

Yeah, after the dust settles on the legal battle, I would love to hear the Canadian version of "This American Life" get the full backstory on this. Were these guys pals playing in the living room or at the bar, or was it between strangers at some kind of underground RPS parlor? The latter seems ridiculous, but so does the former, since I imagine it would involve the loser saying "C'mon man you can't be serious?" for…

Perhaps at the time he figured he had more too lose if their business relationship was to sour.

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

#193

Post by apta »

valuearb wrote: post #156
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.

Banning gambling doesn’t ban gambling. It just drives it underground where knuckle-breakers get to make and enforce the rules.

Then you crack down on such sites. It will prevent the vast majority of gambling from taking place, which will be a net plus on society.

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

#194

Post by apta »

edflsafoiewq wrote: post #162
Alupis wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

Correct, and you take it a step farther. People don't pay even if they want, both parties engaging in gambling are penalized.

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

#195

Post by apta »

joosters wrote: post #137
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.

Not sure I follow? If two people have a 'rational' bet, then is that legal in your eyes? Surely you can't be saying that irrational actions should be illegal, or that gambling on 'irrational' decisions (however one might even try to define that) should be banned? Or that all gambling should be banned, because there is a chance that some bets might be irrational? None of those viewpoints seem to make any kind of sense…

Gambling is strictly harmful to society. There is no reason it should be permitted. It's quite straight forward.

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

#196

Post by apta »

icebraining wrote: post #136
apta wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with the excessive argument. The argument should be to completely ban gambling, because it's been proven to be a harmful practice on society, whether practiced in excess or not.

Proven by whom?

Look at Vegas for a very obvious example.

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

#197

Post by vl »

CydeWeys wrote: post #181
vl wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There already is a "leg-assisted overhead press" widely seen in competition -- the jerk. Except you see it in Olympic lifting, not powerlifting, and it's generally not done on its own, but as part of the clean and jerk. The snatch is another form of leg-assisted overhead press. So if that's what you're into ... take up Olympic lifting!

There is no element of overhead press in snatch. In jerk feet are moving. I think it would be beneficial to have third exercise where the final motion is overhead press after pause and feet are not allowed to move.

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

#198

Post by valuearb »

apta wrote: post #193
valuearb wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning gambling doesn’t ban gambling. It just drives it underground where knuckle-breakers get to make and enforce the rules.

Then you crack down on such sites. It will prevent the vast majority of gambling from taking place, which will be a net plus on society.

It will not. First, large numbers of people will still gamble, and pay a far higher price to do so.

Sports betting is illegal in my state, yet the poker games at my local casino has always been full of bookies taking bets from other players, at significantly worse lines and higher vig than legal book makers in Vegas charge. And sometimes stiffing winners clients after they have a big win, or using threats of violence to collect from big losers.

A few years ago the poker room had to shut down fir nearly 6 months due to a flood. Private games spring up all over town, and instead of taking $126 an hour ($14 per player per hour) like the casino, they raked as three and four times as much. In one game a friend of mine saw the dealer cashed out $2500 in “tips” from her shift. she had been skimming from the pots and the “host” claims he wasn’t in on it. With no cameras, floor management, security etc, they are lucky they didn’t just get hit by a home invasion given the tens of thousands in cash at each game.

Legalized gambling doesn’t just save lives by keeping it out of organized crime control, it makes it far less costly for participants, and making its negative impacts on society much lower. In a competitive market the rake/vig is much lower, playing poker for $14 an hour has much more limited personal impact than playing it for $50/hour.

Lastly legal gambling can enforce rules to protect players from their worst instincts. One example is banning collection of gambling debts to help ensure players only play with what they can afford to lose.

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

#199

Post by valuearb »

btilly wrote: post #191
valuearb wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Source: Omaha High Low (8 or better) has become surprisingly popular at my local casino, and the edge for skilled players does not seem to be any greater. Limit poker has thinner edges than no limit, but NL has been the ocular game.

Yes, really. Source, my brother-in-law is a WSOP champion in Omaha Hi-Lo. At low levels of play, the edge for skill isn't so big, but once you get someone who knows the game the edge goes up. Tip, one of the best positions to be in is going for both hi and lo while an opponent thinks they have a lock on one of those. They feel committed to matching any bet, but you're going to walk away with 3/4 of the pot.

I’ve played O8 and Holden for a living in cash games for years. I know multiple world champions in O8, including WSOP world Players of the year. They are all terrible poker players we used to line up to play with in cash games.

Winning tournaments proves little to nothing, the long run is far longer than any tournament. But boy was it great when one of those fish won a bracelet and took their winnings back to our games so we could bleed them of it over months and months.

O8 has similar variance to Holden, there isn’t a big difference. Most Fish quickly learn to rarely draw at the high only, and how to read the board, and that they have to play two cards. They still make numerous smaller mistakes, which is why they are fish.

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

#200

Post by geebee »

crazygringo wrote: post #188
geebee wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure you’re right about libertarians. I haven’t sensed widespread libertarian support for long term debt collection by the government to recover money for foolish lenders.

Do you have a link to anything like that? Because the libertarian ethos ought to support debt collection 100%. I'd be shocked to see any libertarian state any position contrary to that. Libertarianism is essentially entirely about the role of government being to enforce contracts and natural rights.

I see a reluctance to involve the government in long term wage garnishing or collection

I very vaguely recall an article on reason.com that opposed protecting credit card lenders from cancellation if debt post bankruptcy (similar to student debt) but honestly I don’t really remember. I briefly tried to find it but couldn’t.

I’d be more interested in knowing more about the libertarian position on bankruptcy

Post reply on HN