That example alone is probably going to make it hard for the player vs player duel to happen. Often times, players differ in play style and position, so it's quite hard to gauge who is the clear winner, especially if both players played well. Probably easier to do this with games, as the winner is always clear.
But I guess like what GR suggested, the post creator can always set the terms and the opponent can accept or refuse or counter offer. Either way, this duel concept sounds like a lot of fun and I look forward to participate in something like this in the future. Will be even willing to put some sats where my mouth is.
We could also have a push, if the outcome is in dispute.
My preferred terms would be something like "Jokic will outplay SGA". If we both agree that that's what happened, then you pay. If we both agree that that didn't happen, then I pay. Otherwise, no one pays.
It seems more satisfying to make the other person admit they lost, rather than have it be objectively determined by some metric. Of course there is the catch-all metric of "game score" if we want to be objective about it.
reply
This will be very subjective and biased, unless the difference in performance in clearly apparent. But I'm sure we can figure something out.
It seems more satisfying to make the other person admit they lost, rather than have it be objectively determined by some metric.
So you not only want to win their sats but also want humiliate them in the process. It's tough being your opponent man...
reply
Humiliation is the point of a duel. Sats are a bonus.
reply
Kudos to that! Love it!
reply