Quote from: Boristhecat on October 22, 2022, 05:44:44 PM

...//...::

The guy won his lawsuit, that included not paying the $500, I think what happens is that legal expenses do not include excesses or eccentricitys as in this case.

In reality, you should not lose yourself in the mirage of money, it is a matter of not losing (one bet). Spending $50,000 in Stu Ungar's world was feasible, nothing could this guy cared about more than his reputation, even most than the money he liked to earn.

This guy would take bets against anyone who doubted his card counting skills, e.g. a $100,000 bet:

Quote

In 1977, Ungar was bet $100,000 by Bob Stupak, an owner and designer of casinos, that he could not count down half a six-deck shoe and determine the last three decks (156 cards). Ungar won the bet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stu_Ungar

Quote from: robelneo on October 22, 2022, 11:12:34 PM

Quote from: famososMuertos on October 22, 2022, 04:08:38 AM

...//...::

..//..::

+1
Let's start with the fact that the guy is dead and is recognized as one of the best card players all times, his skills started with Gyn Rummy, then Black Jack in both had practically no rivals, in the Casinos they put conditions to play and in other situations he had to give an advantage, so he ended up playing poker, where he was also able to demonstrate his skills.

Quote from: Uang_kartal on Today at 02:36:04 AM

.../Q/...::
For me, stopping [a short break] must also be timed according to a personal commitment, because if you stop for a long time you will feel stuck, do wrong things and think overly and have a negative view of yourself to start. It could also be if the time is used productively. instead it can cover the minus that is generated from the consequences of the fine [$500] for me reputation will return by itself without having to hide or quit. even if more than $50,000 has to be given. indeed a different perspective bro, but I prefer to face the problems that have been created by thinking about a better strategy when playing in the future. Of course by not repeating the same mistakes.

? '?' ?

Thank you all for your posts (at 99.9%), I think there are three main aspects in the flow of opinions, (1) agree to pay $500, (2) defend yourself if you have the money, and the third that analyzes the usefulness and advantages of the two previous ones to consequently take option 1 or 2.
Nobody chose not to pay, which makes them all very normal.

I think that in practice, real life, on a day-to-day basis, this happens a lot in any country, we have a very specific case (OP) but they are complex situations that many times, regardless of whether it is the accusing party or the accused, situations such as fraud, theft, etc. It is known that going to trial will imply a significant monetary expense, not including the intangible psychological fatigue, so sometimes more money can be spent, than the same one that is involved in the fraud or theft.

But without a doubt, in cases of defamation, depending on the area where you work, cleaning your name is priceless.