[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Hedging Controversy - Another Opinion #2

Posted By: Stick
Date: Sunday, 16 October 2011, at 3:55 p.m.

In Response To: Hedging Controversy - Another Opinion #1 (Stick)

Another player's opinion:

  1. I agree 100% with Sam; B owes A $X. I'm crystal clear on this opinion. If I were A and B refused to pay up, I would be outraged.

  2. Simborg could not be more wrong. While I respect him in many cases, his argument is completely wrong. His Green Bay analogy is ludicrous. The actual BG situation is not even close to his Green Bay analogy.

  3. Player A was technically wrong, but it was just a technicality; the winner of the match received something worth 1500 - whether it was something worth 1500 or 1500 in cash, both have equity of 1500.

  4. This stuff happens all the time - errors are made, but both parties are responsible for them; that's why companies often write "while we endeavor to present correct factual information, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of information contained in this summary; for full information, see the official rules" (I'm paraphrasing)

  5. Since there is no evidence that A intentionally deceived B, I feel pretty strongly that B owes A $X.

  6. I'm not sure why some responders are referring to X% instead of $X. Did they not read your post carefully?

  7. Another way that companies write #4 is "While we make every effort to provide accurate information, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information contained herein" - technically A didn't write this disclaimer in this e-mail, but is it really necessary? *Perhaps* from a legal standpoint it is (I'm not a lawyer), but it would be really slimy for B to try to enforce this. If I have to write this disclaimer in every e-mail that I send B in the future, then I want to know who B is so that I can remember to do this... From a "moral" point of view, this is really horrible scumbagish behavior on B's part. Some more quick points:

  8. A could and should tell B: "You actually did win a 1500 prize; however, according to the rules of the tournament, you're obligated to use this prize to enter a new tournament."

  9. Simborg wrote "when the basic assumption was incorrect, the bet is not valid." I would argue that the basic assumption WAS correct. I hope that Simborg would not go further by saying that whenever the players are accidentally confused, even by a small amount (e.g. say they think that the prize is actually 100 more than it really is), that the whole hedge is invalid.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.