jsearles and Chinamaniac debate about the value of his WSOP pieces

[Steve-O]

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass.

But Steve-O, what if one of the people knows (or should know) that the other's interpretation is different than theirs, does not attempt to clarify, and intends to use this 'ambiguity' to his advantage? Is there an impasse then? Do you subscribe to jsearles22's justification that "Vegas offered a stupid bet, and I accepted"?

No, because the clear consensus is that the bet was intended as Vegas interpreted it; Searles is in the minority (of one???) on that point. I don't think anyoned could argue that Searles version is the correct one. That said, the fact that Vegas was willing to settle for $450 after learning of Searles interpretation shows that the technicality is there --but it's still a technicality and not enough to cancel the bet in my opinion.

Since Searles wants the bet cancelled, and will never allow me to arbitrate, I was leaning towards him owing $250 (the original bet amount for 15 posts) and possibly some posting restrictions like creating threads or responding to threads involving China, Vegas, et al. And possibly an admission that he lost the bet (if this was important to Vegas)