So I ask, did the friend do well in returning $10 to his friend or the returned $10 was not enough?
He do not want to lose then why did he gamble? Or let me say he do not want to lose 30% of the $190, then why did he gamble with the 30%. 30% of $190 is $57. He could have just gambled with $133 or lesser than that. If he won his friend, what tendency that he will even give the $10 back? No tendency. I will prefer not to gamble with a friend but if I did, I will not give him even 1 cent back.
You are right. I also think the guy got a generous friend in that of his friend who returned $10 out of $190 lost on the stake because it was strickly a gambling supposing to be that looser looses it all and the winner wins it all and just so, everyone would still stay unpanick and friendship continues.
If he was in the position to win, I doubt if he would have had that empathy to have to return up to the requested percentage to that his friend and with all to my observation, that was a payback day to him because that his friend told him that his own time would not be different.
Meaning to say when this winner formally lost on the stake with his friend, he only returned him with the same percentage that is to say the $10 returned was equal to the same percentage instead of this guy here requesting for a 30%.
Just as you sighted, if he had found the 30% more valuable than the rest of his lost, then he should not had afforded to have it stake on the game.