500K bet on rock paper scissors ruled invalid by Quebec court • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by meddlepal » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 9:20 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #159

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.

Law and the government are there to do what benefits the society that grants them their power . Blindly upholding contracts does not benefit the society that grants them their power. ("But look at all these other things they do that suck!" - yup, I'm there with you, but the purpose of government is to be just , which is not the same thing as clueless .)

> Law and the government are there to do what benefits the society that grants them their power. Blindly upholding contracts does not benefit the society that grants them their power.

That is but one (very left) interpretation. Good luck getting everyone to agree.

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

#172

Post by meddlepal » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

liamcardenas wrote: post #73

npo9 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My friends would try every angle to weasel their way out of a $100 light hearted bet! I mean, the guy went to court to weasel out of the bet.

Why is no one talking about the true jerk in this situation? The guy legally forcing the other to mortgage his house in order to give him $500k — because of rock, paper, scissors...

How is the guy an asshole? Don't make bets you cannot afford.

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

#173

Post by code_duck » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

cowpig wrote: post #20

paulgb wrote: post #17

They should have added a skill-testing question to the contest! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill_testing_question I think these are my favourite legal loophole. I even remember teachers using them as examples in elementary math classes. Edit: this is tongue in cheek, not legal advice

The article says RPS was ruled a game of skill, but the wager was ruled invalid because the amount was excessive.

It says that while it is considered partially based on skill, it has a large element of chance. It seems likely they would have invalidated it based on that alone.

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

#174

Post by crazygringo » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

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.

You're factually wrong.

Judges very much, all the time, deem whether a contract is exploitative or not. Valid contracts are signed between two parties where both are very much aware of what they're doing and fall within non-exploitative bounds.

You're not allowed to contract yourself into slavery no matter how much you want to. Indentured servitude is similarly illegal. You also can't charge someone a billion percent interest on a payday loan.

Now, granted, some people see the absurd levels of modern student debt as something not so far off from indentured servitude. But the point is that the government and judges absolutely draw lines between which contracts are permitted and not, for the express reason of protecting people from being led into terrible mistakes no matter how much they may want to. Kind of the same thinking behind certain drugs being illegal: the government trying to protect people from their worst impulses.

Of course, libertarians (as opposed to liberals and conservatives) think people should be able to contract whatever they want, hence the "liberty" in their name. But pretty much everyone else on the political spectrum thinks it's pretty essential to protect people from the absolute worst irrevocable things.

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

#175

Post by danenania » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

airstrike wrote: post #142

LargeWu wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's only "too much luck" in games like poker, or backgammon, sports betting, over a short timeline, which is probably longer than you think. That can be hundreds, or even thousands of hands or games. Over a statistically large sample of hands or games, skilled players will almost always dominate unskilled players.

> Over a statistically large sample of hands or games, skilled players will almost always dominate unskilled players. That's true of any game or sport, though. Poker is just one in which that is "less true".

Poker (or Hold 'Em at least) is right in the sweet spot between "too much luck" where skilled players either don't reliably win or the long run takes too long to converge and "not enough luck" where recreational players don't have fun because they feel like they can never win. Luck obscures who is really winning in terms of EV enough to keep the game going. If there were much less randomness involved, it wouldn't be so popular.

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

#176

Post by EdTsft » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

meddlepal wrote: post #171

eropple wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law and the government are there to do what benefits the society that grants them their power . Blindly upholding contracts does not benefit the society that grants them their power. ("But look at all these other things they do that suck!" - yup, I'm there with you, but the purpose of government is to be just , which is not the same thing as clueless .)

> Law and the government are there to do what benefits the society that grants them their power. Blindly upholding contracts does not benefit the society that grants them their power. That is but one (very left) interpretation. Good luck getting everyone to agree.

I find it surprising that anyone would disagree with this. What do you view as the purpose of government? Isn't any other role just instrumental to ultimately benefiting society?

Or are you just disagreeing with the part about contract enforcement in particular?

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

#177

Post by voidfunc » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

EdTsft wrote: post #176

meddlepal wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Law and the government are there to do what benefits the society that grants them their power. Blindly upholding contracts does not benefit the society that grants them their power. That is but one (very left) interpretation. Good luck getting everyone to agree.

I find it surprising that anyone would disagree with this. What do you view as the purpose of government? Isn't any other role just instrumental to ultimately benefiting society? Or are you just disagreeing with the part about contract enforcement in particular?

I didn't state a preferred position, just that it's not that simple. For example, some forms of libertarian thought would definitely disagree that government has any role outside of contract enforcement.

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

#178

Post by paulcole » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #141

paulcole wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attempted? I thought I pulled it off. Would love to get feedback on how to do better next time.

Attempting is a prerequisite to pulling it off.

Cool — all clear now.

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

#179

Post by geebee » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #174

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.

You're factually wrong. Judges very much, all the time, deem whether a contract is exploitative or not. Valid contracts are signed between two parties where both are very much aware of what they're doing and fall within non-exploitative bounds. You're not allowed to contract yourself into slavery no matter how much you want to. Indentured servitude is similarly illegal. You also can't charge someone a billion percent…

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.

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

#180

Post by a1369209993 » Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 11:03 PM UTC

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.

I think they meant that usually (90% of the time, say), you (know you) have a ~99.999% chance of getting your paycheck, and sometimes (the other 10%, say) you know you have <50% chance.