Well, we do not know what would happen if the situation were opposite. They both entered into the agreement, presumably seriously. It seems like just playing the game qualifies both sides as jerks.
Google rock paper Scissors robot. It's not inconceivable that a human may have some skills close to that. Or was purposely slowly entering their final state.
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 totally unenforceable.
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.
This is how you get people with broken legs. As much as I dislike the payday loan places... they largely eliminated loan sharks.
You have legal gambling to keep it out of the hands of organized crime who will collect with illegal methods... not through the courts.
Correct, and you take it a step farther. People don't pay even if they want, both parties engaging in gambling are penalized.
It just drives it underground where knuckle-breakers get to make and enforce the rules.
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.
So gambling is still allowed in your state. I'm saying to ban it completely so the entire market is closed.
It won't be too difficult to crack down on private gambling sites as well. The issue in the US is that each state has its own laws, so this won't work unless there is a ban at the federal level.
> 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.
I don't agree. There are countries where gambling is banned, and they don't have a gambling or crime problem.
Instead you claim countries have successfully banned gambling completely. OK name one so we can correct your misapprehension.
For example Sports betting has been illegal almost everywhere in the US for a long time. Illegal sports gambling has peaked near $150B a year.
What’s next, you gonna want to ban gravity cause your feet are sore?
Like which? The only democracy I see that (almost) fully banned gambling seems to be Israel, and their underground gambling industry is estimated at $3.5 billion.
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-effort, but betting $500k on the game is very much not.
If I enter into a $500k bet on a game of Rock Paper Scissors, it's with the understanding that I stand to lose $500k if I lose the game, and I take that seriously. The only reason that risk is worth taking is if I also stand to win $500k if I win the game. If I win and you turn around and say "oh come on man I really don't want to pay", then you're basically saying you entered into the bet with the intention of scamming me out of an expected sum of $250k, so yes I'll insist that you pay up.
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.
That would be equivalent to burning $500,000.
>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.
What is the minimum amount of effort required to make a bet of $500,000 valid?