Hi all, Pls vote YES or NO. Thanks. Player A n B are badminton players of about the same standard. One day, player B issued a challenge to player A to bet $500 on their next match. Player A has many supporters and wanted to bet. So player A intend to sub-out some of the $500 to his supporters. Player B objected thinking that a Player A will perform better with less money at risk. So is it fair for player A to sub-out to his supporters?
No, the supporters of A who are players in the same beadminton group who wants to bet on the match too, so some of the $500 will go to his supporters.
be it win or lose, he will pocket or fork out the amount he entitled. Eg: players A has 3 supporters want to join in the bet. Lets say they take $100 each, then for players A, his win or lose will be $200.
The match Is planned to play next month. The poll will decide whether A can partially sub out his bet or not, as agreed between them.
IMO: It's fair. Think of it this way: Player A can raise the required amount however he wishes, including borrowing from other players. His payout to the third-party (perhaps in the form of interest) is his own deal. So the only withstanding agreement is Player A and B's $500. The agreement made between Player A and any other third-party is/are a different matter(s), different rules (maybe he still pays back what he owes even when he loses, and so on..)
If player A subs out a lot and is potentially only left with e.g. $10 on the line (or notyhing) I do not think this is equal playing field. If the premise was 'money where your mouth is', then both players should put up their own money. If supporters want 'in on the action', then one of them can play bookmaker and they can bet amongst themselves. VOTE NO
That's what supporters/friends/mates are for! I agree with Cheung and Jilles. You can also turn around and say, since B has more to lose, he'll fight harder. If he can't handle the stress, he shouldn't bet (that much) in the first place.
The premise is, playing with money on the line is different to playing with nothing on the line. This is true. We all know pressure affects people different. Given the above, the point of the $500 is to raise the stakes and increase the pressure. Given this, the challenge is a non-sequitur if any party is allowed to "sub out" since it defeats the purpose (or at least reduces the affect in proportion to the amount subbed out).
It is fair. The argument that player B will play better with less of his OWN money to lose doesn't hold up. We could just as well assume that he will play with more pressure, as he risks causing financial loss not only for himself but for his friends as well.