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

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#41

Post by cryptica »

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…

True, I think the mindset that "hard, honest work is for fools" has become self-fulfilling.

People have become so intensely focused on becoming rich that the mechanisms for getting money have become completely divorced from value creation behaviors which money was supposed to encourage. Detaching money from the gold standard was the straw that broke the camel's back IMO; it systemized deception.

If the financial system is deceptive at its foundation, all the ventures which succeed within it are going to be of a deceptive nature as well.

Value creation is on its death bed. In our complex, unfair and unequal system, most winners are tricksters, cheaters or just born into it (in which case their parents were probably cheaters/tricksters).

I think it's only getting worse over time.

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#42

Post by bryanrasmussen »

Hamuko wrote: post #32
smabie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it doesn't really seem like he had a downfall, besides dying, which isn't exactly an unexpected event for any person..

Well, dying at the age of 50 to throat cancer is not exactly on my list of expectations for life.

yeah but the throat cancer doesn't seem to have come out of some scam he was pulling. So he didn't really get his comeuppance from the throat cancer in the way people normally use the term.

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#43

Post by wccrawford »

frogpelt wrote: post #26
strken wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think most people consider that "rich". They consider that "upper middle class" or even possibly "upper class", depending on lifestyle.

But "rich" indicates a lot more money and a lifestyle above those.

My father came from a family that couldn't afford to put any of their children through college. They wore hand-me-down clothes and barely got by.

Through his own hard work, he learned engineering and management and had a family with none of the problems above. That's definitely 'success' in my definition, but I wouldn't call us "rich".

My wife and I are both software devs, and we make good money. But I still wouldn't call us "rich". Definitely successful, though.

I guess one could argue that there was luck along the way, but not "insane luck" because I can't point it out. There were no lotteries or inheritances involved.

My point is that unless those business owners managed to have multi-million-dollar bank accounts, I don't think they were rich, just successful. I think the number of people who do manage that, without being blatantly dishonest, is pretty small. Not non-existent, just pretty small.

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#46

Post by josinalvo »

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…

> a way that matches the "spirit" of the law or rules,

Rather, I'd say the spirit of some of the laws and rules.

Most laws and rules are worthy, in that if everyone respects them, everyone is better off. They are positive sum. Those need to be followed.

But arbitrary, explicitly defined games might be gamed at the same time.

Re: The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015)

#47

Post by a1369209993 »

burrows wrote: post #28
mod wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”?

FWIW, I take the "Casino might have a point and certainly it's their right to pursue the issue in court" position and I agree with both of mod's comments - it's the courts' job to rule against the casino in cases like this.
Post reply on HN