The bet has been argued to be many different aspects. It was stated in the story, “I'll bet you two millions you wouldn't stay in solitary confinement for five years” (1). Taking this idea as the bet, it was shown at the end of the story that the lawyer lost the bet. The rule was clearly stated, “The slightest attempt on his part to break the conditions, if only two minuets before the end, released the banker from the obligation to pay him two millions” (2). It was apparent that the rules were established, but violated. The lawyer stated, “I shall go out from here fire minutes before the time fixed, and so break the compact…Next morning…they had seen the man who lived in the lodge climb out of the window into the garden, go to the gate, and disappear” (5). It is clear that the lawyer's action was to forfeit the bet by leaving and therefore the banker winning the bet.

There has also been another argument of the idea of the bet. It has been argued that bet was not if the lawyer could stay in confinement for fifteen years; rather it was the original argument in which the bet had arose from. This argument was stated as, “Capital punishment kills a man at once, but lifelong imprisonment kills him slowly. Which executioner is the more humane, he who kills you in a few minutes or he who drags the life out of you in the course of many years?” (1). The lawyer had chose life imprisonment to be better by saying, “To live anyhow is better than not at all” (1). The lawyer however stated in his letter to the banker, “…I despise wisdom and the blessings of this world. It is all worthless, fleeting, illusory, and deceptive, like a mirage” (5) showing he has changed his opinion about the matter. By the end of the story, he admitted that he despised everything in life including life itself due to his suffering of fifteen years. He would have rather died than to have slowly suffered for those fifteen years and therefore, giving up his argument that life imprisonment is better than death.

In addition to the argument of what the bet was, there has been argument that the lawyer had actually won because he had learned more during his time in confinement. However, there is no indication from the story that winning the bet involves gaining any knowledge. It was obviously stated in the story as an argument between the ideas of life imprisonment and death and the bet place on the wager of fifteen years of the lawyer's life and the banker's two million dollars. The argument present by me both times is reasonable in the sense that there is a potential winner for both sides and that it follows the story verbatim.

Through facts and opinions presented, it is clear why the banker is the winner of the bet. The lawyer had violated one of the rules of the bet; breaking the confinement prior to the fifteen year term is complete, resulting in the banker winning the bet. The lawyer had also admitted in his letter that death is a better off than life imprisonment. He had regretted accepting the bet with the banker. These are only samples of potentially more examples to prove those who oppose the idea that the banker won wrong. Though many will still oppose this ruling, these reasons presented remain valid.