View Full Version : POLL: Idiotic or Gutsy?
Mon, 12th Apr '04, 3:52pm
A man sold everything he had for about $135,000, bet it on one spin of a roulette wheel, and won, doubling his money. Story here (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=29&art_id=qw1081774261188B211&set_id=1).
So, do you think this was a gutsy move, or is he nuts? Personally, I think it was stupid – he would have been a lot worse off with nothing, whereas I doubt he will be much better off with double. But then again, I'm a fairly risk-averse accountant. :D
Apparently, there is also going to be a reality TV show based on this as well :rolleyes:
This poll contains 1 question(s). 36 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.
Poll Results: Idiotic or Gutsy? (36 votes.)
Idiotic or Gutsy? (Choose 1)
* Idiotic - 81% (29)
* Gutsy - 19% (7)
Mon, 12th Apr '04, 4:06pm
The difference between idiocy and gutsiness will rest solely on the outcome of his Roulette spin, really. If he loses, he's an idiot. If he wins, he's the worlds luckiest idiot. Looks like it's the latter.
[ April 12, 2004, 16:27: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]
Mon, 12th Apr '04, 4:36pm
Why is he an idiot? It is just money, that’s all.
Mon, 12th Apr '04, 4:53pm
I would say, from a purely mathematical and economical theory perspective ;) , that he is an idiot.
First off he is betting to double his money with odds slightly under 50% of winning so on a strict probabilities basis his expected amount of money after the bet would be lower than when he started. I.E. in the long run the house always wins. Of course this holds true for all casino gambling, most lotteries etc which is why I never spend any money on them.
Second, it is well known that the marginal utility of the first amount of cash is almost invariably greater than the marginal utility of an equal second amount that you add to it, which is pretty much the idea that Splunge alluded to. Or in simpler terms, maybe now the guy can afford a better place to live but the amount of extra enjoyment from that probably wouldn't exceed the loss of enjoyment the guy would have felt if he had lost and had to go live in a cardboard box.
Mon, 12th Apr '04, 6:42pm
@ Sarevok, Yeah, it's just money, right? Though money is a too big part of our modern world to be without. If he had lost it, he'd been out on the street with no cash etc. Not very pleasant. I'd say he's an idiot, since it's a larger chance to loose when playing Roulette. But that's me ;)
Mon, 12th Apr '04, 6:50pm
If it was 50/50, I have to say he both bold and stupid at the same time -and this time it paid off. :shake:
Me? I don't gamble, and I think I can make that amount of money myself without having to risk anything ;)
Mon, 12th Apr '04, 8:52pm
Nice analysis JSBB.
Orkrist the Cleaver
Mon, 12th Apr '04, 10:04pm
Roullette has the worst odds in the house, especially in the US with 0 and 00 added in. But, you have a slightly less than 50% chance of winning on balck or red. Whenever I go to a casino, I play Roulette. Its fun, passes the time, and I usually break even in the end because of these odds. My friends seem to like 00, and ocassionally win big, but when they lose they lose a lot. I say this guy was dumb, but he was successfully so, so more power to him. The trick isn't to win at Roullette, but to know when to stop playing.
Mon, 12th Apr '04, 11:05pm
It was THE gamble of a lifetime. I hope for his sake he's happy now. He would have been the biggest loser ever if things turned the other way. So yeah, he must be a lunatic. :D
Mon, 12th Apr '04, 11:17pm
Idiots are lucky. This probably explains much in my case ;)
Tue, 13th Apr '04, 2:12am
Alright, who voted "gutsy"? Whoever you are, get yourselves to a Gamblers Anonymous meeting immediately before you do anything rash. :p
people person-i eat people
Tue, 13th Apr '04, 3:55am
yes i suppose it is just money, but in todays modern world money practically (and sometimes quite sadly) runs our lives and the odds of him losing are far greater than winning, so i would just say he is a bloody lucky idiot.
Note: i would not advise anyone on doing what this man has just done, because obviously Lady Luck was on his side that day.
Tue, 13th Apr '04, 8:07pm
I think it was just plain idiotic.
Although, the guy did say that his parents would have taken him in if he lost, even though they disagreed with him.
@Splunge - yeah, I read in the National Post that he's gonna be followed by a film crew for the next month...as to why though, I couldn't even begin to guess.
Aldeth the Foppish Idiot
Tue, 13th Apr '04, 9:16pm
For him, he's an idiot, but that's because he sold every possession he had and bet it all on a roulette wheel. Gambling $135,000 doesn't make him an idiot - it's the fact that it was all the money he had in the world. If Michael Jordan goes into a casino and slaps $135,000 on a roulette wheel and loses - he's not stupid because that money means nothing to him.
And this crap about his parents taking him in if he lost - they are really stupid. He deserves to be out on the streets if he went broke due to self-inflicted stupidity.
Tue, 13th Apr '04, 9:28pm
There is not enough information in the article for me to determine if he is a fool or not. I tend to say, he is not. Depends on his motivations. If he's going out to do the crazy thing of his life, seems reasonable to me. Is he gambling for a job on television ending in two years with a moderation job ? A new Big Brother spin-off created by himself, to get himself on the screen ? In this case, I'd say good, innovative plan. And it's also hard to say, if he really took a real risk. Maybe he sold all he owned, but mabye his got a good education and that isn't that much compared to a potential annual income. Hard to say.
Some do even more foolish things.
Wed, 14th Apr '04, 11:46am
A lot of things can be triggered if you believe in them. You'd be amazed :)
Wed, 14th Apr '04, 3:25pm
I'd say idiotic. When they say lifetime savings plus all his possessions, I understand that it took him substantial amounts of time to accumulate that wealth.
Had he lost, he would have had to start from scratch. If he continued, he would eventually have reached a point where he would have the money he has now...so I say he had nothing to gain and everything to lose...pretty idiotic.
Fri, 16th Apr '04, 6:59am
I say gutsy only because it would have taken more guts than idiocy to risk everything you own on such a gamble. That said, I still think he was an idiot for doing it simply because, having seen poker machines ruin the lives of some people very close to me, I have nothing positive at all to say about gambling in any form. In fact, I think our band The Whitlams were on the right track when they wrote a song about blowing up the pokies but why stop just with them? Why not go on to all glamorised forms of gambling? Granted, the stock market and so forth may be a form of gambling but certain aspects of 'civilization' seem to depend on it so let's just stick to casino-style gambling, keno (if it can be separated from casino-style) and sports.
Mon, 19th Apr '04, 12:29pm
Good for him, gutsy move, especially if he was doing it just for the hell of it.
Hmm, maybe I just define idiot differently than you people...
But then - if he was aiming for a reality TV show - idiot. There's enough of that crap out there already :grin: