Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Let's say I am a pool player.
A player that's slightly better than me challenges me to a game. I counter by saying I will play but I get to choose the table we play on. They are all the same brand tables with similar looking clothes so he says "yes" thinking he has a huge edge.
I then take him to the one table in the room in the back where the pockets are tighter than the rest. That's the table I've been practicing on for the last few weeks. I've learned to adjust my game to suit that specific table. We start playing and he's missing a lot of shots he normally makes. I've adjusted my stroke and strategy and start burying him.
I didn't do anything "wrong". He agreed to the terms.
But that's not gambling in a fair way where both sides are equally informed about the game, rules, conditions etc...
It's hustling.
|
It's not hustling if you're the one being challenged though. If I were to challenge someone and they asked to pick the table, I'd be more than a little wary of doing so. Just like anything in life, buyer beware. It's no different than any other negotiation in the business world. I'll do X if Y and Z are prerequisite conditions. If those preconditions set up a successful transaction for me, was that ethically wrong or being a better businessman? I see no difference between my business example and your pool example. They both set preconditions that can be denied by the other side prior to beginning the transaction. Same in the Ivey case. The casino could have said no to the precondition but did not. Therefore, Ivey has no moral dilemma imo. He is simply following the rules both sides agreed to prior to play.
