Bitcoin Forum

The character in this story, far from paying a fine of $500 and leaving his situation for granted or ended, never stopped maintaining that he was not a cheat and went to trial, the cost of that trial was $50,000. He showed that he won because of his exceptional skills at Black Jack.

BtW, that the character in question was a quintessential definition of what a Gambler is, he won big money (millions) and him did it the same to lose it but he left an extra to worry about his reputation, Stu Ungar bet on it and won.

Also add that this player was recognized for having a fairly high level of intelligence, he was able to predict cards from up to three decks, according to legend, at the end of the 70s he destroyed the casinos playing Black Jack and it is thanks to his skils that the casinos were adding decks, in some Casinos despite it, the entry was prohibited for this player.

It's worth the question in hindsight:
1.- You accept being told that you cheated, you pay the $500 fine and that's it, life goes on. You know that those who appreciate you know of your virtues, and you do not need to cheat.
2.- You defend your innocence!.
Omg! but you know that it has a price of $50,000 that leaves you possibly as the topic I am commenting on... in a change of life.

I think I know the average(@) response, but it's good to know what the best opinions are.

Also leave you in any case this story of one of the greatest poker players, who did not know how to control his great skills and as a great poker player Mike Sexton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Sexton) said, "he never understood the importance of winning and ensuring a future^*". More words, less words but something like that he said.

---

Source:
Black Jack
<sup>https://www.homepokergames.com/ungar.php

https://www.documentarytube.com/articles/stu-ungar-story--the-champ-who-was-and-could-have-been
 
(*):I remember Mike Sexton's phrase from a documentary I saw many years ago, I don't remember the name of the documentary but the message of what he meant will stay with me forever.
If I remember documentary title, I'll update it.</sup>

If he pays $500 would he still be able to play poker again? Because if this is the case, why would I spend $50,000 for a wasteful talk?
I can just play again and let people watch me closely play and win again.

$50K is too much to waste but probably for some other people, they'd spend that much to clean his reputation and prove to the world he is not what they say they are. If I would look at myself and know I didn't cheat I'm not paying that much.

I personally don't want to bother with everything, I'd rather spend 500$ to pay a fine than I have to spend 50k$, because the court requires a long and time-consuming process, and not necessarily our reputation will return, because I believe blackjack will block me later
which is definitely mandatory to prove we can get more wins than that after paying the fine

There are people that values more of their reputation than leaving it alone and don't want to ignore it. Well, if that's on me, I wouldn't bother myself fighting with that right on court and spending a lot of money.

Totally ignoring it will work for me and it won't hurt my ego.

But I guess, legends will be legends and they'll have to do what they think is right and will fight for.

I would probably just pay the $500 rather than go through all that trouble going to trial and paying $50K. that is just me because I do not care what other thinks as long as I know that I did not cheat. I do not need to prove myself to anyone.

But I guess it is different for Stu since he has a reputation to uphold, and it seems to me that gambling is his source of income. If he gets banned because he is accused of cheating, it will have a large effect on his life. And I think he has the money to pay for the trial and everything.

He did not lose $50k but also lose his WSOP main event title it's a pyrrhic victory in my opinion
he lose a lot more than gaining I consider this a defeat, its just pride that makes him wanna win the battle, but its not worth it in exchange for the huge amount, loss of time and your title, I prefer to get fined by $500.

It all depends on my personality, if I am a public figure or a celebrity then I can spend $50k to let the people see that am clean and have a good skill I'm Black jack and if I have shown my innocence in court,I will also tell the judge to tell the casinos to grant me free access to be playing Black jack,since it is said they some casinos don't allow him to play. Good reputation brings out the difference and respect in our lives.

If I am not rich and a low class,I will gently pay the fine of $500 dollar,even if I am not allowed to play anymore in the casino,I will go and look for other casinos that haven't known me.

An interesting dilemma.

From a practical point of view, it is easier and cheaper to pay a fine of $500 and not remember this incident. But only if this event does not leave a stain on personal reputation, which will ruin the rest of your life. It seems to me that it will be necessary to weigh the pros and cons of this decision, which may differ in different situations. As they say, situations are different and there can be no universal answer to everything.

$50,000 is a small amount to rehabilitate the reputation, if the reputation in the future will allow you to earn more than this amount spent. Otherwise, it's money down the drain.

But in general, a good reputation does not cost any money and is priceless.

First of all, I think I will defend my innocence. More than anything else, that's because I am truly innocent. Also, because I am a casino player. My reputation is definitely more than $50,000. If I accept that I am a cheater, would casinos still welcome me? They label me as a cheater and possibly won't admit me ever again. I would definitely lose potential winnings. Moreover, of course, that's dishonorable and unfair. I guess my kind of pride wouldn't accept this.

Secondly, although I'm not a lawyer, I'm aware that there is such a thing as financial damages. If you're wrongly accused of cheating and the court has found out that you are not, you can demand financial damages from the accuser. That would cover your lawyer's fee, travel expenses, and other costs brought about by the false accusation. So I wouldn't mind paying $50,000 to prove my innocence because in the end I will have the accuser pay me for everything.

Some people would rather spend thousands of dollars just to defend their innocence and to protect their reputation but as for me, I would rather choose peace than spend a long time defending myself on the court with a long series of processes. It will take a long time before the decision happens. I will have to spend a lot of money and time so I'd rather pay $500 just to end things.

Paying the 500$ fine will make him guilty and probably he will be ban to the rest of the casino since they are all connected on same network. A 50,000$ cost to clean his reputation is acceptable if he really has the talent on card deck prediction since no one will gonna question him anymore if he is winning since he already proved his case to the court. It's really an expensive investment but as we all see now the result, he dominates most of the casino using his talent after he fought in the court which he can't do if he yield and accept that cheatig accusation earlier.

in my case if i had the 50,000$ to cover the expenses of the lawyer and the process itself i would prefer to defend my honor in court, it would not make sense to continue playing after being accused of cheating because in all newspapers they would have published this and in all casinos could take advantage of that, what would happen to me would be: I would go to a casino and when I won a lot of money the casino would accuse me of being a cheater, so I would have to pay 500$, then I would go to another casino where I would win and they would accuse me of being a cheater and they would charge me 500$ and this cycle would repeat until I was banned from all casinos, and in the end I would have lost money, reputation and chance to have fun in a casino, that has no advantage. the best thing is to go to court and show that i'm innocent


in my case if i dont have the 50,000$ to defend myself in court i would rather stop gambling in casinos i would not humiliate myself by accepting a charge that i know i am innocent i would rather stop gambling in casinos and tell the press that i am innocent


It's true, when a person doesn't have much money to go to court, the person has to pay the fine, but it's better to stop playing, because if you keep playing, you'll just be labeled a cheater and in all casinos they'll always use the same argument for not you. pay, they will always accuse you of being a cheater. so stop playing forever is the best option

You got a point, but the thing other casino will hear this news that he will gonna pay 500$ because he admits that he cheated then other casino won't ban him, because if they knew the knowledge he has in gambling that he can predict cards till the 3rd round casinos won't tolerate that and he might get kick in casinos because of that, if he really want to play more and be accepted in other casinos, just pay 500$ . He don't need to prove anything to other people.

That will affect your reputation as a gambler and casinos might easily acuse you as a cheater because of that bad record but if you will just quit playing for a while, you won't feel bothered and might live in peace.
I don't think spending $50,000 just to prove your innocence will still be worth it. They accused you already so there's no sense defending your side. It will cost you a lot of trouble and money. You don't have to protect your pride and ego that much if you know that you didn't violate anything not unless if you're a well-known person that has a reputation to protect.

I believe that the reputation of an honest man is worth more than $ 50,000, in addition, a litigant can claim compensation for moral damage and defamation, but as I understand defamation can be proved only after winning in court. That's why many people who know they are right are willing to spend money, effort, and their precious time to prove their innocence. Personally, I respect that attitude in life.  

The case of Stu Ungar happened off line. People knew him personally which make his reputation important to him to save face. I think those people who value reputation will understand him spending a lot for justice.  Its the same for defamation case of some popular people.

But in the case of online, I'm not sure if things will be the same. Paying $500 will be enough as long as they get the full amount they won.

It can hurt being accused of something you did not do. Your name, reputation and what is written about you and known is very important. If he hadn't gone the extra mile to clear his name considering that he was fairly confident in his ability, history will remember him as the biggest cheat of that time even though it wasn't the truth. Some things are worth more than money, and reputation is one of such things which you must take seriously, if it is within your financial ability to prosecute whosoever tries to ruin your reputation, you should do it without minding the cost.

Image in all eyes of the public, if he pays his reputation definitely will be destroyed, he will not be allowed to play anywhere. My personally, if have money and win every bet with skill, I will do the same thing, because I think reputation is the most important thing in life. Even if it's online or offline, also the accusation is wrong and I'll dare to take any action to clear my good name "my reputation is priceless".
 

I wouldn't pay $500 fine just because of winning in blackjack. It the casino can be approached to make them watch yoi play then you don't have to pay $500 when they have suspicion of you cheating in the game which made you win $50 000. If you pay the fine then I think that's what will cause problem in the future. It will make people think that yoi bribe rhe casino to not ruin your reputation which I myself think that keeping your reputation by paying the fee which you didn't even cheat may means that you are a gambler that they can take for granted since you put your reputation first through bribing just to keep your reputation as it is.

Some people say that reputation is very expensive. They are willing to spend a lot of things, including money, to get prestige in the eyes of many people and do things that are sometimes beyond our common sense just because they want to be seen as extraordinary.

Maybe that's what Ungar faced so he paid the price of a reputation. Maybe for us, we will say that it is better to pay the $500 fine and just walk away but not for him because his name has been tarnished in public and if he pays the fine, maybe the public will call him a cheater.

And that's what happened to Ungar. He was willing to spend a lot of money to face the charges of cheating and he ended up winning in court but lost a lot of money on it. Perhaps it was worth it for Ungar to maintain his reputation as the best gambler. And if we are dealing with a person or company with a lot of resources, we will be powerless and maybe we will be trampled by them and even if we can win it, we must have gone all out in every way. And maybe it's worth it.

Very muddy case, I did not fully understand it actually. If he won the trial, then why didn't he recover his expenses at the expense of the losing side?

But let's assume this is a purely theoretical question. I know that such dilemmas often arise in civil litigation, since there is always the word of one side against the word of the other side and the presumption of innocence does not apply. That is, you must prove that you are innocent (what the opposite side accuses you of). Often such cases end in nothing - that is, party A cannot prove their statements, but party B cannot prove that these statements are false. And in the end, the one who tried to protect his reputation loses time and money (for lawyers and other expenses), but cannot "restore" his reputation.

I don't know how to solve this dilemma. You need to look at your financial capabilities and how much your reputation "brings you money" - if you lose income after losing it, then you need to protect it (but again with reasonable spending), and if this does not affect anything, then it might be worth going through by and forget about it.

I would certainly not pay for more than $50k to prove that I am not a cheat, but if I paid that $500 fine other casinos/platforms will recognize me as the "guy who cheated" and may even bar me from entering competitions or even just play on a regular table. It's a 50/50 situation, neither of which is an easy road to take. That $500 may not be "that big" for someone who regularly wins blackjack but it would sure tarnish their name. The $50k in court and legal proceedings is huge, but at least the world recognized that I'm not doing something wrong just to win on that table.

If you're a top player and you're making a living out of it, you will defend your honor at any cost because the tag that you've cheated will be attached to your name all throughout your playing career, I believe the guy did the right thing and this is warning to organizers that he will go to court if they mistreated him, but if you're an average player, you'll just go on pay the fine and move on, I think the guy wants to defend his legacy so he is willing to spend that huge money and lose time and his title, it will worth it in long run.

Each person has his own perception. For a person who doesn't want to face a complicated situation, probably pays $500 to fix the problem. While a person who thinks to defend their reputation by any means, he must refuse to pay $500 since it means he admits the mistake (cheating the game). Of course, $50,000 is a big money but I agree that reputation is valued more than that money. Admitting the mistake will make him to call as a cheater throughout his life. No one wants to get labeled as a cheater.

I think that the issue is not how much his reputation was worth but rather what the money was worth to him. For example, for most people 50k is a really large amount of money that takes a long time to gather. For rich people like Bill Gates or Elon Musk, 50k is peanuts not even worth thinking about. They could use it literally as toilet paper and not care about it.

So if that man is truly such an amazing blackjack card counter then he obviously has more than enough money not to care about a measly 50k. So in that instance his reputation would be worth much more than the money.

Or maybe he is not "rich" but has a strange, non-typical value system. Who knows?

Having your good reputation can bring you on a better place and I think the money is not a concern here but more of his reputation because if he pay the fine that only means he accept the accusation as a cheater, look at what he did here he push this into court and won the case, now he became more famous and reputable bettor. Well, as a small time gambler like me, I can't even afford to pay that fine, maybe I have to let go of my reputation and just transfer into another site beside, I'm the only one knows that I'm into gambling so my reputation is not that impressive.

If I know that i'm not doing anything wrong and the accusation is not true then I will not pay $500 to end this mess, because in return, my reputation as a gambler will be ruined. It doesn't feel good to admit something that you know you didn't commit.

On the other side paying $50k for the process to clear my reputation is really stressful given the situation of what you have to go through. But if this is the way to prove that you're innocent then it will be worth it. However, we know the cost is not cheap to begin with, and probably not all gamblers can afford it.

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.

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:

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

---

+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.

---

? '?' ?

---

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.