|
One of my roommates has what I and my other roommates believe is a very strange concept of when something belongs to you.
Scenario: You buy in to a poker game, giving your buy in money to the tournament director. There is a guaranteed prize pool of $10k for the winner, and $0 for everyone else. You're now at the final table, with one opponent left. You both have the same number of chips, and both go all in. Before the final card is dealt, it is known that you have a 95% chance of winning, whereas your opponent has a 5% chance of winning. At this point, before we know the winner, who does the prize money belong to? The prize money is guaranteed 100% to go to the winner.
Poll: Who does the money belong to?The tournament director (51) 64% No one (25) 31% 95% of it belongs to you, 5% belongs to your opponent (2) 3% You (the person with the 95% chance) (1) 1% Opponent (the person with the 5% chance) (1) 1% 80 total votes Your vote: Who does the money belong to? (Vote): The tournament director
(Vote): 95% of it belongs to you, 5% belongs to your opponent
(Vote): You (the person with the 95% chance)
(Vote): Opponent (the person with the 5% chance)
(Vote): No one
|
Since you buy in and pay the tournament director I would see him as the temporary owner of the money but obviously he is obligated to pay the winner of the tournament once the tournament is over.
No matter who's odds of winning at that point the tournament director will still be holding the money.
|
This really isn't even debatable...
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
wtf this is so random lol
and the money doesnt belong to the winner until he actually wins
its like ok u have usain bolt running vs a toddler obviously usain bolt is 100% guaranteed to win but he doesnt win until he actually runs past the finish line before the toddler does
|
Sadly there doesn't seems to be a "Money ain't got no owners, only spenders" option.
|
whoever owns the risk owns the money
|
On November 21 2010 17:02 LTT wrote:
Sadly there doesn't seems to be a "Money ain't got no owners, only spenders" option.
There is, it's "no one".
On November 21 2010 17:01 alffla wrote:
wtf this is so random lol
and the money doesnt belong to the winner until he actually wins
its like ok u have usain bolt running vs a toddler obviously usain bolt is 100% guaranteed to win but he doesnt win until he actually runs past the finish line before the toddler does
That's what I said haha. But, my roommate thinks that's 95% of it belongs to the eventual winner. It's his reasoning for why, when he loses in poker with a high chance (greater than opponent's) of winning, he gets pissed off that the other guy took his money, or alternatively that he just lost that amount of money. The amount lost being independent of his buy in and dependent on the prize pool.
My other roommates and I think that is rather retarded and all he lost was the opportunity to win that amount of money, not that money itself.
There is value in your position, that of a 95% winning chance, which is related to the amount of money in the prize, and which you can actually lose, but that's still not losing the prize money itself.
|
Voted no one. The money is pooled with the director so she takes care of it while the owner is decided.
edit
To expand on this, if the tournament director owned the money he/she could just walk out with the money and it wouldn't be fraud.
|
oops - etherealdeath accidentally posted on other comp which was logged in to roommate's account
|
Kind of unfortunate that we introduced money into the scenario instead of using value, because the money has its own intrinsic value which is guaranteed by the government, and thus has value independent from your position at the table.
|
I consider no one to be the owner. The Director is not the owner of the prize money. He/she is holding it for the winner. Since there is no winner yet the money belongs to no one. It doesn't matter what the percentage you have of winning is. In the end the winner is the winner. There is only 3 things in that situation. You either win, lose or you split the pot because of a tie and you keep on going till there is a winner.
Saying that the money belongs even temporary to the Director just makes it complicated. For example if it does belong to him/her can he/she actually use the prize money, with the intention of paying it back obviously. If you want a rule that fits every situation having it belong only to the winner is the best call. Everything else is very situational. Like the example I said above the director uses the prize money but actually pays it back after in time for when the winner is determined. Then in that situation its okay but lets say the director doesn't pay it back.
|
The Director.
He is forced, however, to pay the winner, so it's not like he has some unfair "advantage."
|
On November 21 2010 17:48 Karliath wrote:
The Director.
He is forced, however, to pay the winner, so it's not like he has some unfair "advantage."
I don't think the director is forced at all. He is definitely pressured to though. But he can always just take the money and disappear.
|
I don't like any of the answers. The money isn't unowned, nor is it owned by the director. If anything, it's owned equally among all of those who bought in, at the very least equally by those remaining. It really depends on the particular rules of the tournament. Consider if something happened that forced an abrupt end to the tournament where no conclusion was possible. Would the tournament director simply pocket the money? No. Odds are it'd either be split evenly amongst the two remaining or split evenly amongst all participants, such that nobody gained or lost anything.
I don't think the director is forced at all. He is definitely pressured to though. But he can always just take the money and disappear.
He could, but that wouldn't make the money his. Whenever he was caught up with again he'd be forced to pay back the money (plus all the punitive/civil damages that'd be sure to come). Pretty much anyone would consider it theft and you can't steal your own money.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
um, if for whatever reason everything had to be stopped and couldn't be played out in the future then yes your roommate is right, the guy should get 95% of that money, that would be the only fair thing to do
tournament director is merely acting as an escrow, he has 0 ownership
|
i picked the 95% guy, because he deserves it more.
I fucking hate being drawn out on by underpairs on the river.
|
On November 21 2010 18:37 Rekrul wrote:
um, if for whatever reason everything had to be stopped and couldn't be played out in the future then yes your roommate is right, the guy should get 95% of that money, that would be the only fair thing to do
tournament director is merely acting as an escrow, he has 0 ownership
And what if we know 100% that it will be played out and someone will win?
|
i should have picked 5% because your roommate is obviously venting, and you all are just haters
|
Easy mode. Directors.
He still own that money even that he HAS TO give them to winner. In that second it is Directors money or a Subject which is providing money.
So that one who has money in his bank ACC or in the pocket is owner
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On November 21 2010 18:39 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 18:37 Rekrul wrote:
um, if for whatever reason everything had to be stopped and couldn't be played out in the future then yes your roommate is right, the guy should get 95% of that money, that would be the only fair thing to do
tournament director is merely acting as an escrow, he has 0 ownership And what if we know 100% that it will be played out and someone will win?
it belongs to no one at the time, it is merely being held by TD who has responsibility
don't even know why this retarded question is getting a thread or im replying lol
|
asian roommate quabbling draws in like a black hole
|
On November 21 2010 18:41 Rekrul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 18:39 EtherealDeath wrote:On November 21 2010 18:37 Rekrul wrote:
um, if for whatever reason everything had to be stopped and couldn't be played out in the future then yes your roommate is right, the guy should get 95% of that money, that would be the only fair thing to do
tournament director is merely acting as an escrow, he has 0 ownership And what if we know 100% that it will be played out and someone will win? it belongs to no one at the time, it is merely being held by TD who has responsibility don't even know why this retarded question is getting a thread or im replying lol
You read poker and couldn't resist?
On November 21 2010 18:42 Bill Murray wrote:
asian roommate quabbling draws in like a black hole
I guess it was too obvious that my roommate is asian eh T_t
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
the thread has absolutely nothing to do with poker
|
It's funny how there's actually no practical significance to saying that the tournament director owns the money if the money is indeed guaranteed. (Unless we assume an informational advantage that could increase the inherent value of the current possession of the money by the tournament director) The money is dead to him.
If an insurance company operates on any low commission cost with respect to the amount of winnings, then the value of the prize money could theoretically be close enough to 95% anyways. I.e.: Your position can be exchanged with the insurance company for 9.4k in hard cash at that instant. Your opponent could exchange his position for some value close to 500 as well.
The definition of ownership as applied to something like money can only be related to the insured future spending power of that piece of paper if it is to have any significance at all. In this regard, we can always change the percentage chance of winning to being arbitrarily close to 100%, and still have the same fundamental argument. This value could theoretically match the nonzero probability of money disappearing from your wallet, or your account at your bank being deleted.
|
None of the above.
If the hand is disrupted for any reason, players return to their pre-hand wealth, as though the hand never happened. The fact that one player has a greater chance of winning doesn't preclude the opponent's chance to win it, so an expected-value breakdown is not fair outcome unless the winner has 100% chance. So in this regard the players have equal holding.
The tournament director owns no more than the proportion of the money that is paid to the house. Possession matters very little, nor does the notion that it is impossible to "own" something: there is an agreement among all agents what money and ownership represent, and chips are a measure of that ownership.
50%-50% among the players.
The intuition that the house does not own it is simple: No player would accept that the house owns 100% of their earnings in the case of some disruption mid-hand - they would demand back their pre-hand wealth. The house may serve as an arbitrator, but they are paid a small proportion for their honest service as an intermediary between players. If guns were entered into the experiment, then the likelihood of violence is an indicator that the house will not claim ownership.
|
No one. Sooner or later they'll play the round to the end.
|
MONEY, n. A blessing that is of no advantage to us excepting when we part with it.
|
If you cant find an owner, then just give them to me kk. I know how to manhandle those crisps!!
|
Why do we care? We'll know in 10 seconds.
But if we do care, then we can reasonably conclude it belongs at that moment to the organization that set up the tournament. They are planning (and probably contractually obligated) to give it to the winner of the hand as an incentive for future players of future tournaments.
|
Hyrule19047 Posts
If, at any point, the Tournament Director "owns" the money, then the Tournament Director is corrupt and should be replaced and possibly jailed for theft. Prize money is owned by whoever pays in until they pay in. After that point it's merely held and secured by the tournament staff. After that, it belongs to the winner.
|
In legal terms there are actually 2 concepts here:
- who 'owns' the money
- who 'possesses' the money
It's not clear who owns it, there might have been a contract when you handed the money to the TD that indicates the status of the cash (so it really depends).
It IS pretty clear that the TD possesses (in legal terms) the money, which implies he has to exercise his duty to hand it off to the winner (unless there was a contract which stated otherwise).
|
Korea (South)1897 Posts
On November 21 2010 18:41 Rekrul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 18:39 EtherealDeath wrote:On November 21 2010 18:37 Rekrul wrote:
um, if for whatever reason everything had to be stopped and couldn't be played out in the future then yes your roommate is right, the guy should get 95% of that money, that would be the only fair thing to do
tournament director is merely acting as an escrow, he has 0 ownership And what if we know 100% that it will be played out and someone will win? it belongs to no one at the time, it is merely being held by TD who has responsibility don't even know why this retarded question is getting a thread or im replying lol
+1
in this context of poker
David Jung Former Regional Director of Pokerstars
and Rek you replied because it's absolute madness why anyone could vote otherwise and you're stunned by the retardness
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
