In Chekhov's "The Bet," who in your opinion won the bet between the banker and the lawyer?

This is
an interesting question. There are several ways of looking at the outcome. It might be said that
neither of the men actually won or lost the bet, because the lawyer didn't collect the two
million rubles and the banker didn't lose the two million rubles. Morally speaking, however, it
would appear that the lawyer won the bet and  the lawyer decided to let the banker "off the
hook" by walking out the door five hours before the deadline.

The banker
seems to be acknowledging that he lost the bet by his thoughts and behavior on the night before
the term of imprisonment expired. He sneaks into the prisoner's room for the first time in
fifteen years with the intention of murdering him after keeping him in solitary confinement for
all that time. The banker himself would acknowledge that he had lost the bet, and the lawyer
would probably assert that he had won it, although he disdained to collect the money.

The bet itself is hard to understand. Initially the two men were arguing about the
relative cruelty of capital punishment versus life imprisonment. This is the pertinent
dialogue.

"The death sentence and the life sentence
are equally immoral, but if I had to choose between the death penalty and imprisonment for life,
I would certainly choose the second. To live anyhow is better than not at all."

A lively discussion arose. The banker, who was younger and more nervous in those days,
was suddenly carried away by excitement; he struck the table with his fist and shouted at the
young man.

"It's not true! I'll bet you two million you wouldn't stay in
solitary confinement for five years."

"If you mean that in
earnest," said the young man, "I'll take the bet, but I would stay not five but
fifteen years."

In the first place, the young lawyer
doesn't have anything like two million to put up. It isn't really a bet. The banker has nothing
to gain He probably regrets getting involved in such a contest as soon as he has committed
himself. He not only stands to lose a fortune, but he has to keep the lawyer in comfort for as
long as the young man chooses to stay. He provides his meals and even offers to serve him wine.
But how did the question of "life imprisonment" suddenly and inexplicably turn into
fifteen years of solitary confinement. Men serving life sentences are not sentenced to solitary
confinement too.

It was agreed that for fifteen years he
should not be free to cross the threshold of the lodge, to see human beings, to hear the human
voice, or to receive letters and newspapers. He was allowed to have a musical, instrument and
books, and was allowed to write letters, to drink wine, and to smoke....He might have anything
he wanted--books, music, wine, and so on--in any quantity he desired by writing an order, but
could only receive them through the window.

Chekhov had
to change the argument from capital punishment versus life imprisonment to capital punishment
versus fifteen years of solitary confinement. It is hard to detect the slight of hand by which
he does this, but he could hardly have a character serving a life sentence, because he would
have to die in prison in order to win. The bet is "wild and senseless" enough as it
is, but no one would bet he could spend life in a typical prison without the amenities the
banker was providing.

"" is not a typical Chekhov story. He does
not usually have surprise endings or even  resolutions. "The Lady with a Pet Dog" is
more "Chekhovian."