Settle a Bet, Please - Page 2

smbruin22 · #11 03-02-2007, 05:54 PM

seems like it was a bottom 3 bet, and you don't have the info (assuming it was last night, not a week ago).... so i say bet voided.

llabb · #12 03-02-2007, 05:54 PM

Sorry, not trying to go against you. Just think it should be clarified from the original exact wording of the original bet, or no actioned. You kinda nixed yourself since you were the one who brought it up to your friend.

If the original bet was "Will Sanjaya be in the Bottom 3 this week," and you took the No, then you should have won the bet.

smbruin22 · #13 03-02-2007, 06:12 PM

sorry, i keep thinking it's from last night... why wait a week for this??

yeah, if he was top 4, then he wasn't bottom 3... but what was wording of original bet? really depends (and i haven't read every entry since)..... but big misunderstanding i think leans towards NO PLAY.

LinusKS · #14 03-02-2007, 06:42 PM

The original bet was whether Sanjaya would be in the bottom three. He took "yes," I took "no."

But when the show started, it was the bottom two who were being eliminated, not the bottom three.

If Sanjaya had been among the bottom two, I would have lost the bet, but if he had not been one of the two, I could not have won - because he still could have been among the bottom three.

In order to keep from getting free-rolled, I told him we needed to cancel the bet, unless he wanted to change it.

After a lot of discussion, he said, "deal off, unless they somehow announce bottom 3, in which case old deal still in place."

And I said, "ok."

His argument is, "They did not announce the bottom three, and in fact we don't know who the third to last contestant was."

Mine, "That may be true, but we do know that Sanjaya was not one of them."

curtains · #15 03-02-2007, 07:03 PM

Whatever you obviously win this bet

pete fabrizio · #16 03-02-2007, 07:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever you obviously win this bet

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I think it's obviously no bet, and not because of a hyper-technical interpretation of the language. This is basic fairness. If you accept an interpretation of this bet that allows OP to win when Sanjaya is told he's not in the bottom 3, but where no bottom 3 is announced, then he's on a total freeroll. Had Sanjaya been eliminated, there would have been no bet, so the other guy had no chance to win. This was exactly the same concern that motivated the negotiation in the first place, except in reverse. Fortunately, the language they adopted is fair in both directions, so why try to re-write it?