Prop Bet, Side Bet and Crossbooking

Can anyone explain once and for all to those who are using these terms inappropriately the difference between a prop bet, a side bet and crossbooking?

Don't these terms mean different things to different people?
My generalization:
Prop bet: Bet on doing something or something silly, or a guess.
side bet: (a side bet might be a prop bet also) bet on some action that someone else is betting on but 'off the table' eg betting between two people not in a had about what someone was holding.
Cross booking: Swapping action in a tourny or ring game. eg 2 people agree to give each other 10% of what they win in a tourny.

There are probably many other interpretations.

"Prop bet" is short for "proposition bet" and it's, quite simply, a bet made on a proposition. As bigjoker notes it's often on something trivial or stupid. Things like Erick Lindgren's famous "shoot four rounds of golf under 100 in a day" bet fall into this category. The bets people make during a poker game on what the predominant colour or suit will be on the flop probably fall into this category too.

A side bet is one made on the side of a game - say a last longer bet in a tournament. It could in theory be a prop bet too, I don't think the distinction is all that important.

Cross booking is very different though. It's a specific type of bet where participants agree to pay each other the amount that the other wins in a tournament. If we agree to cross book in a tournament, you fail to cash and I cash for $300, then you owe me $300. If you cash for $500 and I cash for $300 then I owe you a net $200.

What bigjoker is talking about is actually called swapping pieces - each player owns a certain percentage or "piece" of the other's action.

Oz is correct. A good example of cross booking is if you feel you have an advantage on the player. In a recent episode of Poker After Dark, Daniel kept saying how bad Hellmuth was at cash games. He stated "I will cross-book you ALL DAY! Anytime you want. You're terrible!"

Daniel feels that Hellmuth is bad. If Hellmuth loses 100K in a game, he ends up owing Daniel an ADDITIONAL 100K. But if he wins 100K, he gets an additional 100K from Daniel.

Hope that clears it up. Oz's explanation is perfect. Just thought if you saw the episode, it might make it clearer.