Would you 'call this person' on this (see details)
We have a football pool where I work, yet there are many people who don’t work here whose names are listed as particpants of the pool also. Two weeks in a row, the weekly winners were not people whose names are listed in the e-mail addressed to all by the person who runs the pool.
Would you question the person that runs the pool who these winners are? (a few of us are suspect that these are phantom participants and the person who is running the pool is pocketing the winnings)
The person who runs the pool has yet to win even a week in the last maybe three or four years.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
15 Answers
hmmmm…that definitely is fishy, I don’t know what I would do. Try making some jokes about it first, see how he reacts.
Call your cousin Tony first.
I would definitely ask a few questions. Sounds like shenanigans to me.
fishy. yes. ask about it.
This is a good plot. If the pool-runner has planned this out and is pocketing the money under false names, you should be aware that he/she might have also prepared explanations for the other people. That is, it might be hard for you to effectively interrogate him/her.
This is why I don’t gamble.
Yeah I would definitely bring it up!
Why not all get together and ask the person to limit it to employees only? Say that otherwise, none of you want to be a part of it.
Note: I would do this without mentioning your suspicions.
Are you suggesting that he is creating these players and their picks after the fact, or just that he is himself entering multiple times to improve his odd? If it is the former, there needs to be a set deadline when all picks are in, after which (and before the first game) everyone playing should get a copy of everyone’s picks. If it is the latter, then all the money coming in needs to be held by a disinterested party, in which case if the money in doesn’t match the number of players, then there’s a problem, otherwise he paid for extra chances, so I think it’s fair as long as everyone else can pay for extra chances. Doesn’t anybody know how to set up a proper game of chance anymore?
@Marina Your solution brings up an interesting point, it limits the number of participants, which improves the odds of winning, but also limits the size of the pot. Lotteries show that people prefer big prizes over good odds, so I think most people would include more people.
@gussnarp you’re right, there is a deadline for submission of picks but it’s Sunday Morning one hour before the first game, so nobody gets to see all the others picks.
I have no problem with players submitting more than one set of picks, and I understand that for the “overall” score, each set of picks for each person has to have unique names. Each individual set of picks submits $5.00. One of the guys in the office gives four, One for him, one for his wife, one for his kid and one for his dog… (it’s kind of a joke, when the ‘dog’ is doing better than he is)
But at least we can all see the connection. When “Marvin” wins week 4, and there’s nobody on the e-mail list named Marvin, I wonder if “Marvin” exists at all
I think the best way to implement my solution is to get some new people who want to play, and have them ask for these requirements before participating. That way no one ever has to know you suspected anything and politics can be maintained.
@christine215 Push to have the deadline moved to Friday at 12 noon and a summary email of everyone’s picks out by Friday 4 P.M.
@christine215 Yeah, that deadline is way too late, it should definitely be moved up to allow for reporting of entries. All this from a guy who doesn’t gamble.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
