
The Man Who Got No Whammies (2015) - CrocodileStreet
http://priceonomics.com/the-man-who-got-no-whammies/
======
dang
Discussed at the time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10216338](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10216338)

A related thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9570713](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9570713)

Links to the 2003 documentary mentioned in past threads are now dead, but it
is here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o75teVHwkT8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o75teVHwkT8)

------
golemotron
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.

~~~
LocalH
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.

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

~~~
mod
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.

~~~
burrows
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.”?

~~~
mod
I don't know, but it's likely they also freerolled him. As in, they decided
not to pay him if he won, but let him keep winning in case he lost. He could
easily have lost a few million, his edge wasn't that big.

I think they're the sleaze.

Anyway the matter is settled, not in Ivey's favor. The fact that Ivey isn't in
prison should settle the debate over the legality of what he did.

------
firethief
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 comes for us all?

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

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

~~~
bryanrasmussen
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.

------
ipython
This is such a fun story. It’s how I commonly introduce common folk to the
importance of true random numbers in cryptography. Glad to see it come up here
again.

------
axguscbklp
>"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 become rich by gaming the
system and/or screwing people over.

~~~
smabie
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
dominant, completely broken strategy that is definitely not in the "spirit" of
the game. Some people have gotten very angry at me because of this, but isn't
this how games are supposed to be played? The same applies to life, I think.

~~~
foobarian
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 as possible of the various
moral behavior which is very hard in practice and easy to exploit.

This is hard to discuss with precision because there is a lot of subjective
judgment involved. Cutting lines is not against the law, so should you do it
to avoid wasting time waiting? Occasionally a rightmost lane is in practice
used mostly for right turns, but marked as both straight and turn. Majority of
people seem to understand it's a jerk move to block that lane for the turning
traffic, so it's usually empty, but every now and then some greedy SOB takes
it to overtake the herd. Personally I find this kind of thing despicable and
do what I can to prevent it.

I'm sure there is some evolutionary biology connection to fairness and why we
behave/feel this way.

~~~
greggyb
> 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.

------
loganfrederick
A documentary on this story:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o75teVHwkT8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o75teVHwkT8)

------
Mountain_Skies
The attention it brought to the game show may have been worth more than CBS
paid out. They quickly changed the game mechanics so it couldn't be so easily
exploited a second time which made it a one time cost. Wonder if there was a
ratings boost after the episode, even if short lived.

------
Hamuko
The Man Who Got No Whammies*

Technically he did get one Whammy.

------
gbronner
If you watch the actual show, he did, in fact, get a warranty on the first
spin. Didn't affect him though, as he didn't lose any money to it.

~~~
cowpig
That's mentioned in the article

