Alameda lost tens of millions because of a fat fingering mistake

The value of a bluff - and the value of a hand - is all about what's in the pot. I made clear that my integrity and my life were worth a lot more than whatever fraction of $10k a crooked dealer would've gotten. There are plenty of guys who might try to do something like that for $5k, but I'm not one of them.

I'm sure the doubt remained. What you wrote kind of reinforces my point that it's very hard to be sure that an expensive mistake was an honest mistake.

Personally, though, I didn't quit to try to double-bluff. I'm a self-preservationist. I'm in the business of keeping myself alive, and I draw the line at working for someone who threatens me.

I'm aware that quitting could've seemed shady, but at that point it was the least of my worries. And I doubt it's the normal course of behavior, either, if someone were caught skimming. Someone who was guilty of malfeasance, who was offered to keep the job, would have almost certainly chosen to stay and lay low while finding some new way to scam them, because that person needs either the money or the frisson. I enjoyed 'em both but I didn't need either enough to risk my life on another accident.

Someone who lacks any trust will always find reasons to assume the worst, as you say. There's a bit of a corollary, though, in my experience, which is: People who choose to continue working around those people also mostly can't be trusted. And I feel like the trust-less parties are well aware of that.

I have a fair share of our story with Fat Fingers:

The Athlete's Glitch

Our client team had an amazing NFL season. But with the start of a new NFL season, but our NFL team was buzzing for a different reason – the unveiling of our off-season updates to the beloved iPad app used by one of the major NFL teams.

Our app, which was primarily used for training and past game analysis, had undergone a major overhaul, and we were proud of the sleek new UI/UX designs. But just as the athletes started to get into the grind of their training, our office started receiving some unexpected feedback.

"Hey! The app is taking me to the wrong sections!" one message read.

"I keep hitting the wrong button. Something's off," said another.

Confusion took over our team. We had spent months meticulously planning, designing, and testing these updates. Automated tests had been executed to perfection, internal testing hadn’t shown a single glitch. What was happening?

Then, a video came in. It was from a coach, showing one of the top athletes trying to use our app. We watched intently as his fingers moved over the screen. The problem became immediately apparent: his fingers, sculpted by years of athletic training and naturally larger than the average, were simply too big for our redesigned interface. Every time he tried to tap a specific function, his finger would unintentionally touch the adjacent ones.

Turns out, in our endeavor to create a sleeker, modern UI, we had inadvertently shrunk the size of the clickable buttons and packed them tightly in a grid. This might have looked aesthetically pleasing and worked perfectly for our testers, but for the athletes with their robust fingers, it was a recipe for frustration.

We convened an emergency meeting. Our lead designer, Marcus, broke the silence, "Our primary users are these athletes. We should've considered their physical attributes in our designs. It's my oversight."

Our project manager, Clara, nodded in agreement. "We need to fix this and roll out an update ASAP. We can't have the team struggling with this during their crucial training period."

The next few days were a blur of coding, designing, and testing. With feedback from some of the players, we reintroduced larger buttons and ensured enough space between them, all while maintaining the sleek look of our new design. It was a lesson learned the hard way, but it reiterated the importance of understanding our users' needs and physical attributes.

The next feedback we got was from the star quarterback, "Perfect! Back in the game with this. Thanks, TechTouch."

The NFL season kicked off with roaring crowds, and our app, now more user-friendly than ever, was right there with the athletes, assisting them every step of the way.

There are some places I've seen in Europe that do deal the hole card, and check it (for reasons unknown), but they don't stop the hand and flip it if it's a blackjack. They just ask for insurance, and the insurance sits there while they let the hand play out. It's quite disconcerting.

Dealing requires an exceptional amount of concentration. You need to do every player's calculations faster than they do, while also controlling the game. But it's a lot of rote repetition, physically and memorization. Any person can be taught to deal over a week or two, if they can concentrate. It's just practice. But like suddenly driving a car on the other side of the road, it's hard to switch your automatic reactions. I grew up in a family of Vegas dealers, part of the genesis of my conversation with the guy who got me dealing poker. Blackjack is the easiest... mostly it's just simple additions, which you do the moment you deal the cards. Poker is much more about nuance and controlling and monitoring the game.

Would love to have a properly trained Vegas dealer weigh in here.

It definitely can apply to single stocks, depending on the exchange. For example I believe NYSE has single-stock circuit breakers that kick in around 15%, then subsequent further breakers once trading resumes.