Mathematical Genius

ok, let's test Kevin well-thought out theory of "I think the deal should be you pay for the person you did not pass. The lower you are on the ladder, the more dinners you pay for".

1. Scenario #1 (pay for full dinners of everyone who beats you) - ok, so let's say a person loses handicaps to everyone else and thus needs to pay for his/her plus all 7 dinners, at Gibsons a cool $500 at least (guessing a low $60 per). Since someone who loses to everyone as far as handicap times owes 8 dinners, the person who finishes 3rd does not need to pay for dinners 1 and 2 b/c finisher #8 is already on the hook for those. That makes no sense, so ...

2. Scenario #2 (all people you beat split your dinner cost) - eg. Ryan beats 6 of 7. Those 6 pay 1/6 each for Ryan's $60 dinner, $10 each. Everyone else is a "push" and nobody wins as gainst anyone else. the #7 person beats the handicap v. Ryan, but beats nobody else, so Ryan pays for #7's whole dinner ($60). Everyone else owes zero to each other, so end of day ryan's out $60, #7 (who beat Ryan) owes nothing. All the others pay for their own plus $10 to Ryan's ($70). So, Ryan pays $60, all the people he beat pay $70 and the person who beat Ryan owes nothing even though he tied all 5 others. And THIS "push" is the easy scenario. Try to figure it out if Ryan beats all but #7, and #7 LOSES to everyone else, and #5 beats #6 and #7 and nobody else. This possibly could not be what you conceived, unless you have a calculator in your head and/or are Rain Man, so ...

3. Scenario #3 (you buy dinner for everyone you lose to, one on one). This means that a loser needs to take out each winner to dinner separately. I reject this idea bc the idea of 1 on 1 dinner alone with you scares me, as does the roommate situation.