Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#21

Post by codemac »

mc32 wrote: post #18
firethief wrote: post #7

The article keeps making it sound like he met his comeuppance, even as they finally reveal that he ran off with $3M and died of natural causes before he was caught. They never seem to substantiate the pervasive tragic tone. The whole whole thing reminds me of the existentialist treatment of the "Touch of Death" in Men Who Stare at Goats ... His schemes were often successful, but ultimately meaningless because death c…

To me it seems more like his beating the system gave him false confidence that he could find flaws in systems which would be lucrative but he tended to rely on illicit schemes that never worked out for him.

> tended to rely on illicit schemes that never worked out for him.

I mean, they found one radio one that failed, but almost all the others actually did work out for him?

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#23

Post by mc32 »

codemac wrote: post #21
mc32 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems more like his beating the system gave him false confidence that he could find flaws in systems which would be lucrative but he tended to rely on illicit schemes that never worked out for him.

> tended to rely on illicit schemes that never worked out for him. I mean, they found one radio one that failed, but almost all the others actually did work out for him?

But they involved fraud, no? That’s not success. Almost anyone willing can commit some kind of fraud at work, but why? He could have ploughed his abilities into something above board as his brother kept on suggesting but it seems he always sought the “quick buck”.

Also his dollar bill serial no matching thing was foolhardy.

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#24

Post by mod »

burrows wrote: post #17
LocalH wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Michael’s run on PYL is often called a “scandal” as if he cheated. The only scandal was that CBS tried like hell to figure out a way to deny him his winnings.

Where do you fall on the Phil Ivey edge sorting incident?

Not OP, but Ivey didn't touch the cards or use any kind of technology to win. That's not cheating. He should be paid.

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#25

Post by throw149102 »

smabie wrote: post #9
axguscbklp wrote: post #5

>"He didn’t understand the value of good, hard, honest work," his older brother, James, later bemoaned. "He thought those people were fools." I wouldn't call people like that fools, and pretty certainly the world would fall to pieces without them. That said, I don't think I can really blame anyone too much for not valuing good, hard, honest work in this world where many people are simply born rich and many others bec…

What is good, hard, honest work, exactly? I certainly work hard, but is it honest? I'm not sure. I certainly don't intentionally go around breaking all the rules I can, but I do try and use my brain to figure out every possible loophole and advantage I can. I don't think exploiting loopholes is dishonest, but I'm sure some would disagree. For example, when playing board or card games, I always try and discover some d…

>For example, when playing board or card games, I always try and discover some dominant, completely broken strategy that is definitely not in the "spirit" of the game. (...) isn't this how games are supposed to be played?

IMHO, there are 2 necessary criterion on whether or not a game should be played in a certain manner:

1. Is it fun? 2. Will people continue to play with me if play this way?

The first is obvious, don't do things that aren't fun. The second has to do with exhausting the people who might want to play with you - after all, if no one plays with you it's unlikely you'll be able to keep playing the game.

I don't imagine these criterion are complete, however. A dog might want to "play" by chasing a cat, and the cat might continue to "play" if it fears for its life. This is not a thing I allow. There needs to be some criterion for consent, or for the game being "good" for all parties involved.

In the case of card games, I've been very turned off of them before because of broken strategies. I'm not in principle against discovering new strategies that happen to be much stronger than intended ones, but if the game that comes out of that discovery is no longer fun, then I have no incentive to learn how to play the game.

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#26

Post by frogpelt »

strken wrote: post #19
frogpelt wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. What do you consider "rich"? 2. Do you honestly not know of anyone who has gotten rich by good, hard, honest work? EDIT: Let me rephrase question 2: Do you honestly feel that most "rich" people got that way by being dishonest or gaming the system?

I don't know of anyone who got rich by good, honest, hard work without also getting insanely lucky. I know of people who got insanely lucky without being good or honest.

Ok, you didn't define "rich" or "insanely lucky" so there's probably no point in a discussion about it.

But there are people all over the United States who have started their own businesses doing very basic things like plumbing, electrical, HVAC, or software consulting who have made enough money to retire any time they want, travel, own a house and a lake house, etc.

I consider that rich and I don't consider it lucky or dishonest in most cases.

If you think rich is $50 million or more then yes you start getting into some very rare air. And those people probably have benefited from several things going their way that were not entirely in their control.

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#27

Post by StanislavPetrov »

krustyburger wrote: post #3
golemotron wrote: post #2

It's funny how a picture of him has the caption "Michael Larson was never interested in following the rules" when, actually, he was the only one who bothered to figure out the rules.

He also committed unemployment fraud before his TV appearance and ended up creating a Ponzi scheme in his later years.

Sounds like he missed his calling as a politician.

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#28

Post by burrows »

mod wrote: post #24
burrows wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you fall on the Phil Ivey edge sorting incident?

Not OP, but Ivey didn't touch the cards or use any kind of technology to win. That's not cheating. He should be paid.

Is there a set of people between “Casino might have a point and certainly it’s their right to pursue the issue in court” and “Ivey found a loophole in your system, suck it up you cry babies.”?

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#29

Post by burrows »

mc32 wrote: post #23
codemac wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tended to rely on illicit schemes that never worked out for him. I mean, they found one radio one that failed, but almost all the others actually did work out for him?

But they involved fraud, no? That’s not success. Almost anyone willing can commit some kind of fraud at work, but why? He could have ploughed his abilities into something above board as his brother kept on suggesting but it seems he always sought the “quick buck”. Also his dollar bill serial no matching thing was foolhardy.

Really inspiring stuff.

If I commit fraud (but don’t know it’s fraud) to win the Super Bowl, do I succeed or no?

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#30

Post by greggyb »

foobarian wrote: post #13
smabie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is good, hard, honest work, exactly? I certainly work hard, but is it honest? I'm not sure. I certainly don't intentionally go around breaking all the rules I can, but I do try and use my brain to figure out every possible loophole and advantage I can. I don't think exploiting loopholes is dishonest, but I'm sure some would disagree. For example, when playing board or card games, I always try and discover some d…

Maybe this is a necessary evil in a day and age when a society is not all on the same page with respect to morals and values. It sure would be nice to have everyone proactively choose to act in a way that matches the "spirit" of the law or rules, and maybe this did used to happen in more homogeneous/authoritarian societies? But without that synchronization it seems to fall to the legislative bodies to codify as much…

> It sure would be nice to have everyone proactively choose to act in a way that matches the "spirit" of the law or rules, and maybe this did used to happen in more homogeneous/authoritarian societies? But without that synchronization it seems to fall to the legislative bodies to codify as much as possible of the various moral behavior which is very hard in practice and easy to exploit.

I suggest you read into the history of common law as it pertains to the history of legal practice in the UK and many of its former colonies. It is still strong today in both the US and the UK, though I am not familiar with other commonwealth nations.

In a common law legal system, laws are discovered through trial rather than ordained by legislation. Precedent is built through case law.

This is a system that is all about the "spirit" of the law.

Post reply on HN