OT: The Throwing vs Hitting Tennis Bet

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
bz,

el d's point still stands. How is it immoral for him to do it, but not for you and ken to do it when you think you're essentially taking some sucker's money? Again, my retarded aunt would see the holes in this logic.

[/ QUOTE ]


Let me use an analogy.

If you have ever been to a big city like SF, you've seen certain guys on the street. They play this game with a ball and 3 cups, where they move the ball around in front of you, and you get to put money down on which cup you think it's in. They even give you 1:1 on your money.

Many suckers believe that they have better than a 50/50 chance to win this game. After all, how hard can it be to track the cup with the ball?

Stopping right there, do you think they have committed an immorality by accepting this "great deal"? No, the street party put out the deal and knows FULL WELL the consequences.

But what the visitor doesn't realize is that the street gambler is very good at what he does, and in fact he has probably a 1 in 3 chance of guessing the cup.

So now by my logic it should be immoral for the performer to play such rigged games, right? Wrong: I only find it immoral if it is IMPOSSIBLE for the visitor to win a given game. That is, if he slipped the ball into a different cup when the visitor guessed--that would make it immoral. But since the visitor has a 1 in 3 chance, it's moral.




I think this is a pretty good analogy, since it is almost an identical situation. The only difference is the actual chance that the "sucker" has.

[El Diablo]

Nick,

Seems like IC5 and kenthecow should both be ready to rock.

[gumpzilla]

I have to say this is a pretty awesome hustle. You really have Gus on the hook for $100k for this bet? That's sweet.

I don't understand how people can think Nick is being immoral here. It just seems to me like he found the greatest prop bet ever. As is almost always the case, the lesson to be learned here is that it never pays to say you'll make a wager around a bunch of gamblers unless you're damn sure you want to make that wager.

[El Diablo]

bz,

Wow, wow, wow.

<shell game>
"the visitor has a 1 in 3 chance"

You are infinitely more stupid than I could have possibly realized.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
bz,

Wow, wow, wow.

<shell game>
"the visitor has a 1 in 3 chance"

You are infinitely more stupid than I could have possibly realized.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ive never actually sat around to watch the game, but I assume that you could do as well as randomly picking a cup


ps If you're implying that he cheats to take your money---then I think it's immoral.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
kc,

"How is it immoral for him to do it, but not for you and ken to do it when you think you're essentially taking some sucker's money?"

I already explained that. It is ok for bz to take money from idiots or people not in full control of themselves, but when bz is the idiot, it is immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh right.. I forgot about the favors awarded D1 athletes and Stanford students. Silly me.

[baronzeus]

By the way,


Combining your most recent name-calling post with your previous posts, this is the most I've been called "douchebag" "idiot" "pathetic" and all the other names since 9th grade. Good job El D, you are really proving your maturity.

[El Diablo]

bz,

Are you claiming that Nick is an absolute lock on either side of this bet? Because if he isn't, and is willing to take either side, then how is it immoral?

Seems like either:

a) Nick is an absolute lock as either thrower or hitter

or

b) Nick is not doing anything immoral by your standards

Which is it?

[El Diablo]

bz,

I have a large vocabulary and thus am able to use the most appropriate word for each scenario.

[baronzeus]

Nick is an ABSOLUTE LOCK as the thrower. I don't know about the hitter. That side of the bet doesn't concern me.

But yes. He is an ABSOLUTE LOCK. He admitted to it over AIM to Ken. Do you really want Ken to play him after he did that?



Also does anyone else not find it immoral that several times in this thread Nick made it seem that Ken was a favorite (in fact a large favorite) but when talking to Ken straight up admitted to Ken having 0% chance (actually -50% chance)?