$25k challenge

[Dan Druff]

But okay, if you want to be able to change denominations, that's fine. We can allow that.

Except the bet wouldn't be if you show a profit.

The bet would be a cross-book.

We would be the casino, and you would be the player. And whatever you lose, you pay us. And whatever you win, we pay you.

And the money would be escrowed beforehand on BOTH sides.

The bet would be for a set number of hands, or until the money on either side ran out.

Ok?

With this proposal Rob would have limited liability of whatever he decides to play with. Let's say it's $50k. But Dan and "the casino" face unlimited liability.

Dan are you sure you want thus bet?

No, we wouldn't have unlimited liability. Once Rob busts the agreed-upon bankroll on or side, the bet would be over.

But it's not going to happen, because Rob is demanding to be able to play $1 through $100 denominations, meaning we're at risk to lose $400,000 if he hits a royal at the $100 denomination.

While that is unlikely, Rob knows that we aren't going to take that potential "downside" if he gets super lucky. Nobody here has deep pockets like the casinos do.

That's why he's offering this bet.

However, I'm sure if we came up with someone willing to take that risk (or if we pooled enough people together to put up such a bankroll), he would add some other unreasonable term.

Rob, you say you want "minimum $2500".

Okay, we could agree to requiring that you don't quit until one side is at least $2500 up. But again, limits $0.25 to $10 per credit.