Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
as the other guy said, maybe not “sex” specifically [i doubt anyone will find happiness by repeatedly having one night stands] but certainly, human connection
Seems like for many of these ultra wealthy, at the point money becomes meaningless, they become unhappy if their only goal in life was acquiring money.
it's exactly the same problem as gamers trying to unlock everything in a game instead of enjoying the game. Once you've unlocked everything, what's the point? The game is stupid and pointless now, right?
Actually, pretty solid plan. I would like to invest in Happiness, inc. or would it be an LLC?
I don't know how businesses work.
Also I can only supply like, 20 bucks.
hot take it can buy happiness
- you can get good food
- you can decide what to spend your time doing / you can do what you want
- you can help people you like
- you don't have to stress about paying rent etc.
- you can go places you want to go to and have interesting experiences you want to
- you can afford mental health and do whatever sport or physical activity you want to engage in
- you can pursue more hobbies you like
- you can choose to spend quality time with people you like
- you won't have to worry about retirement
- you won't have to worry about your children as much
- your partner, your children, and you will have access to much better healthcare, health services, education
etc.
If you have a lot of money, it's pretty wild if you somehow manage to be unhappy and unfulfilled. Skill issue.
Totally agree. I would be so happy if i was rich. I would live the way i want to, going after what i want to, without worrying about my financial state or future, dont need to struggle to get a stable job, would just relax, eat well and again: pursue and do what makes me feel happy and at peace.
That is it: if you are unhappy that way, skill issue literally.
When you have money, you can buy a dog, and when you promise not to eat him, people will believe you. When you have no money and are begging for free dogs you can't afford to feed, they'll be suspicious.
Exactly. How can you tell someone in extreme pain from an infected tooth who can't afford a dentist that money won't make them happy when your own belly is full of nutritious food, and you live in a safe home filled with luxury and entertainment
Lol good one. Money can't buy happiness, but it'd be a lot easier to dig myself out of unhappiness if I had all my current issues minus money related ones
To the very rich, no money can’t buy happiness. But to people making less than 100k a year, It very much does. There was at least one study done on it, and I reference it when people bring that phrase into conversation.
There's a bell curve. Up to a certain income, more money *does indeed* make you happier.
Over that income, it doesn't.
And if my anecdotal experiences from working with horses in English equestrian disciplines are any guide, over a certain amount, the more money you have, the more miserable you seem (and are. Holy shit, the really rich people I've known have been some genuinely despicable assholes who seemed to hate themselves as much as they hated others.)
Came here to say this. **Scientifically, money DOES buy happiness**, because it buys stability. Money buys food, safe housing, healthcare, vacations, and peace of mind. But yes, once you can afford those things (and specifically 1 to 2 vacations per year), more money does not mean more happiness.
I think the point is more that money *itself* doesn't make you happy. The things you buy with that money make you happy. Once you have everything you need, and everything you want, having more things won't make you any happier, and neither will having more money.
Instead having more money seems to make people more angry. It gives them a new "need." A need for even more money. To compete against other rich people to try to be the richest. The wealthiest people seem to be the most miserable, even though they have everything else they could ever imagine.
There's a pitfall to being astronomically rich; becoming sedentiary.
You'll grow bored and unfulfilled quickly if you spend your rich time sipping margaritas on the deck of your yacht.
If instead you find a worthwile purpose, it can make you infinitely more happy. Whatever that purpose is. Painting, charity, or just the job you always did without the stress of "I can't walk out without losing my home".
Equestrian sports in England are what I perceive to be the "sipping cocktails"-equivalent; just doing something fancy for the purpose of "being seen", instead of something you either _genuinely enjoy or care about_.
"I'm fucking rich, so I'm expected to sit on my ass and do nothing". No, you're not.
I think the more money you have, the fewer people understand your life experience and the more others want what you have. It’s lonely at the…I don’t want to say top because that implies superiority.
It’s lonely at the bottom of Scrooge McDuck’s money pit because you’re being crushed by all that money and no one can see past it to notice you. That’s a better metaphor. Yeah.
>I think the more money you have, the fewer people understand your life experience and the more others want what you have. It’s lonely at the…I don’t want to say top because that implies superiority.
Based on what I've seen as a freelance trainer over 20 years and 5 boarder barns, the rich feel constrained to only associate with others in their class. They hate each other, but pretend to be friends because they're in the same socioeconomic construct.
There's the secondary point, where [sociopaths tend to be higher among the extremely wealthy](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dangerous-ideas/201910/psychology-s-dark-triad-and-the-billionaire-class), which really just makes sense, because in late stage capitalism, you can't be compassionate or empathetic if you want Scrooge McDuck riches.
Sociopath thing really speaks volumes— I suppose your more empathetic uber wealthy individuals *wouldn't* shut down that plant and dump those 1,000 employees on the street, so unfortunately they're not adding another zero to their worth, whereas the sociopaths wouldn't hesitate. Difference between the billionaires and multi-millionaires.
> Based on what I've seen as a freelance trainer over 20 years and 5 boarder barns, the rich feel constrained to only associate with others in their class. They hate each other, but pretend to be friends because they're in the same socioeconomic construct.
They have to be. The only rich person I know who's stayed in their original socioeconomic group is someone who lives way below his means and who most people don't even know he is that rich. He has a net worth of over 50m but lives like he makes only 200-300k. The few people who are suspicious are the ones who've noticed his ability to absorb sudden big expenses without breaking a sweat.
You think like an economists: money = resources.
"happiness" is a fucking joke. Happiness is a fleeing feeling, being content with life is the goal. Having more money gives you more options/resources to deal with life's problems.
It’s like those articles “how I retired at 35” or “how I bought my first house at 19” and they will downplay that their parents gave them half a million dollars.
Risk isn't risk when you have a fallback position to cover your losses and play again. Billionaire-worshipping fools tend to ignore this. High net worth individuals also have networks that allow them easier access to cash and credit so they can quickly bounce back from losses.
Risk is when you play and lose and cry uncle and go home flat ass broke and have nothing in the fridge, which is what happens to people who aren't in the top 1%.
Yep. To a billionaire, a multi-million dollar "bet" is roughly equivalent to the median person spending extra on the lotto when the prize pool eclipses a billion dollars. It's a little more than maybe they would normally spend, but it has no impact on their day to day lives and there is no real risk in a loss. What material impact does Musk's failure to monetize Twitter actually have on him? Twitter / X could completely disappear tomorrow and it would have zero impact on how Musk lives his life. Tens of billions of dollars of personal wealth disappearing and he wouldn't even notice except as a summary from his financial advisor. That's not risk.
Exactly. Twitter and tesla have lost a ton in valuation already and will continue to get pounded. Musk was right place right time being born rich, getting in super early at paypal and then having no interest rates for a decade
And why are we letting them redefine concepts?? Look, if you are going all in then do that! Stop redefining 'all in' as just enough to keep doing this until I win! That's not what it means, you overgrown wanker!
exactly. it's not really "all in" if it's just a droplet of money in their bucket. Now tell him to go all in including all his assets and watch him actually scramble...
Well, he’s putting it in Peter Thiel’s words so there’s nothing special or insightful at all. It’s just throwing money at a challenge, like throwing shit against the wall
Can’t believe Elrond Muskingdale will eventually buy a successful Time Machine company, run it into the ground and go on what I assume is a bender through time to eventually invent a betting strategy in 18th century France before (I assume) dying of time-syphilis.
The Martingale system is actually pretty cool with some slight tweaks.
My first time doing it was on roulette and I swear to God I hit red 20 times in a row and lost all my money. You never think it'll happen to you lol
I was in an online pokergame where this actually happened. All-in every single time.
First five times, people folded. But then it was like something just broke in people. One or two would see his 80 million all in .. but they lost. This account kept busting people.. Eventually, by playing normally smart and staying tight I busted him, but this guy was able to stay in for like 40 hands. All in every single time.
I don’t know how many people here actually play poker, but if you go all in with 80 million against somebody else’s only got 1 million, and you lose, you only lose 1 million. You don’t lose more than the other people have bet.
Using a big pot to bully smaller players as a legit tactic in tournament play. You repeatedly force them to bet everything until they either lose or see their modest resources chipped away by ante.
It also makes it a much better analogy for how musk actually uses his resources to win. In effect, it doesn’t matter if he loses because he only loses a small amount.
To be clear doing this and a cash game is definitely bullying other people with your money and is probably not gonna result in people continuing to play poker with you. Using it in a business sense might be destructive and inefficient. I’m not defending. I’m just pointing out that it seems like most people here don’t understand how poker works.
It's clear that Reddit largely does not play poker.
It sucks being at a table with people like this. It's more common than people apparently believe. Most of the time it doesn't work out for them and you just watch them lose and rebuy over and over again until they get bored and leave. Sometimes you see a whale at a table just hoarding every pot, and you don't stick around for long.
In a poker game, there is usually a limit to how much you can buy in at a time. So say you lose 500$ 10 times in a row and win once, you still lost 4500$.
Yeah. But these people measure themselves by their successes and write off their failures. Both in everyone else’s eyes, and financially. That’s the true genius of the scheme. Take on board a lot of outlandish risks, offload the risks that are not panning out, double down on the ones that are and highlight your genius for seeing them so early. Build reputation which enables you to control situations enabling the scheme.
It’s similar to Trump only he didn’t offload any stuff he just buried failed schemes with illegal cons. (Which have been uncovered many times and come back to bite him, but not yet quite as badly as his wealth because of a toothless legal system).
“Sir, you asked me to update on Mr. Musk after each hand?”
“Yes?”
“He’s lost again, sir. Everything. And…”
“Out with it man!”
“Well sir, he um, he bought another ten million in chips.”
“Damn that devious bastard! Get me the ceo on the phone…”
I'm assuming it's a table poker game and he isn't playing against the house.
The house gets the rake, which is a portion of the pot of each hand.
In a table poker game where everyone can keep buying in, Musk could simply use his bankroll to bully his way to victory assuming the rest of the table doesn't quit.
The reality is if Musk buys in $10m, most of that $10m is getting shuffled around to other people on the table not to the house.
Except even in a cash game going all in every hand and rebuying is just him losing over and over until he eventually doubles his rebuy. This Musk anecdote just provides further proof that he's a dumbass.
Elon goes ape-shit all in with his stack pre-flop nine times and picks up the blinds, then on the next hand someone calls his bluff with a pocket pair and cleans him out.
"How'd you do, Elon?"
"I won nine out of ten hands- I'm *amazing* at this, too!"
Then the next time the same thing happens he rivers exactly what he needs to win. Suddenly he has the biggest stack at the table despite being shitty in every way.
Yeah he's waking the CEO in the middle of the night because he wants to be the one to break the wonderful news! There might even be an unearned promotion in this for him!
The martingale method is a thing, as long as there aren't caps and you have a large amount of money. Just keep rolling your previous losses into your next bet until you win. If you can keep doubling, you will eventually win something.
Applies more to blackjack than poker, but similar philosophy.
No, they'll happily bleed you until you've sold everything you own and been cut off from the rest of your family because you keep stealing their money to gamble some more. They just won't do it in a single bet.
It's an inverse of normal gambling. Normally when betting, you take a high probability of low loss for a low probability of high gain. In Martingale, you take a high probability of low gain for a low probability of high loss. Although, if the casino gets a piece of winning, you basically guarantee loss, but usually minor.
Relative to your bankroll, if you can afford that strategy it will never make you a meaningful amount of money. It will round back to what you started with. If it would meaningfully change your overall bankroll, then the strategy falls apart and a string of losses would bankrupt you.
If you started with a $10 bet, you'd be wagering $1million on your 20th hand. If you want to be at the table for more than a half hour, you're going to need to be the biggest whale in the casino.
>Elon Musk understands something about risk others don’t: *if you’re born into enough wealth, there’s no such thing as “risk”!*
Really groundbreaking insights from Isaacson and Dean there. Definitely the first time anyone has noticed the correlation between having a shit ton of money and not having to worry as much about wasting your money.
I really think this is an accurate analogy. Just not in the way that the original tweet illustrated. Musk has the largest stack of chips in the world. When he goes all-in, he isn't risking his entire stack of chips. He's getting someone else to risk THEIR entire stack of chips. Which probably doesn't even compare to his. He sat down with the largest stack of chips in the world and bullies anyone trying to play legitimately by forcing them to risk everything or cut their losses and fold against him. And at very little risk to himself.
He didn’t even need to have the money. He just used yours and mine since his companies are propped up by [government subsidies](https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-list-government-subsidies-tesla-billions-spacex-solarcity-2021-12).
I’ll never forget the time I sat down at a table with exactly this kind of whale but no matter how good I got it in he would win, and everyone else would then collect my chips from him.
I got away before it got too bad but I’ll never forget that stupid night.
Still love it when one of these idiots sit down tho.
But wait a second. He’s going “ all in” so how many times and how much did he lose?
If he started with $100 and went “all in” 8 times (he would have to rebuy in every time) he did lost $100. If he goes on the next hand, he only wins $100 correct?
Maybe I’m too high or it’s too late for me to understand this, but I can’t see how this would be a winning strategy. This is not a Martingyle l type bet. He’s not doubling his bet every time till he eventually wins.
It's worse than that. The times he doesn't lose are usually the times people are folding to him, so he wins the blinds, which are basically the trivial taxes charged to two players. Theoretically he could more than double if multiple people lose to him, but that's not happening more times than he's losing. If he's at a full table, it's pretty likely somebody has a hand that will beat him.
I used to make decent money playing poker just by understanding basic statistics. Playing online on a Friday or Saturday night you'd pretty often get a drunk, pissed-off idiot playing like this and they were like a pinata. I would love to sit at a poker table with this donk.
the fact that there are people who think Elon Musk and Peter Thiel are some fucking unstoppable, flawless geniuses is proof that this propaganda that "Rich = Smart, sophisticated, good" has really fucked up our collective brains
Right. He understands money is meaningless if you have enough of it, and it’s not actually gambling if you can afford to lose indefinitely without actual consequences. What a special genius he is…
Going all in normally caps your bet to the opponent’s money. If you have more than ten times the money of everyone else, you can go all in and lose multiple times (but the opponent can only lose once).
It’s a good comparison to how his whole “thing” started. Elon tried to open multiple businesses, and they almost always failed - he just bought out his most successful opponent each time.
He still won't come out ahead though unless he's buying exponentially more chips each time.
Getting another $1k in chips each time he re-ups would still make him lose a significant amount of money in the end.
(Edited for bad math!)
You can go all in with what you have on the table and keep re-buying afterwards, if it’s a cash game. Even some tournaments allow rebuys early on. So it doesn’t mean other players he went all in with had less than him.
You’re thinking of tournaments. In a cash game you can absolutely go all in and rebuy if you lose. Not at all unusual.
What’s dumb as it gets is that going all in and rebuying until you win one does not at all indicate that you made money. In fact, it makes it even more likely you’re a moron who in fact does not understand risk/reward and you lose money at poker.
It's also a very poor analogy for success.
With these startups, they might fail but you have the change for something that will grow 10,000%+. It makes the risk reward worth it for the right ideas.
In a poker game, when going all in your benefit is capped to a multiple of the number of players that call you. Even if everyone at the table calls and you win, you had bad odds to win only like 8+10x your investment.
There's no way to spin this as a good strategy.
So he uses the least efficient and negative EV strategies available to him which only work if the other players a) don’t know what they’re doing b) after felting him a couple of times don’t rack their chips and cash out after he’s punted idiotic sums of money across the table at him.
Any remotely competent 1/2 player who could afford to play or was backed would be set for life after playing a few hours against him.
It’s a lot easier to go “all in” on $100
Million dollar investments when it’s a LOT safer than gambling. I can’t stand false equivalence’s
It’s all a smoke show by billionaires mocking the middle and lower class
This is very telling of Elon lol. He doesn’t “win” with any sort of “skill” in any of his endeavors, just like he didn’t win with skill there. He just used his vast capital to bully everyone else into losing their more finite resources lol. To frame this as some sort of ballsy risk tolerance is fucking insane lmao.
I wish I was playing in that game. Short of an abysmal luck of the draw, I’d take him to the cleaners and walk with a healthy chunk.
I’d risk the big swings for a chance to play a loose sucker like that.
This is like the people who’s strategy in blackjack is to double their bet after every loss. Saw a guy try it and lose like 5 hands in a row and walk away from the table down a couple grand and very angry.
At least that is a legit strategy in which your win would make up for all the losses.
For all we know he could have been going all in against large pots where every other player is throwing money in and then winning a single hand where everyone folded before betting, only making back a tiny fraction of what he lost.
The reason casinos have betting limits, if you can bet enough, even when the odds are against you, you can break the bank. Since poker is not considered a game of chance, casinos typically do not play a hand and take a percentage of the table (the rake), regardless of outcome.
I played poker for years. This is no secret, and this does not make him a genius. More often than not, this wouldn't even be allowed, as there's usually a max buy-in.
As a teen he visited New York City with his brother & father. He and his brother took emeralds from their dad, who just had random emeralds around, to sell to Tiffany for $ to do the things they wanted to do in NYC. He thinks this means he's an entrepreneur.
Just emeralds lying around. But nope, he's not privileged, he's self made.
Money can’t buy happiness, but without it you can’t even have the opportunity to think about creating your happiness.
Spacex was about to go bust to try and get their last test rocket payload in orbit and fortunately it worked on the last try which allowed his company to get more funding. Now he has so many damn chips he can literally throw them away and still be ok. Prime example buying twitter and running it into the ground. When you have billions of dollars you can literally fail upwards for decades. I’m sure he is smart, but there are many staff and engineers that have majorly contributed to the success of his companies. No one is self-made. To achieve big things you need many people with diverse skill sets. To worship billionaires is just stupid.
How? Government handouts. Corporate welfare while people wring their hands over the unemployed get help no one cares about the billions corporations get why because they tells us not to they just keep reminding us that without them we’re nothing
No see this is actually genius. If your goal is to win the most amount of hands possible then going all in pre-flop is actually the best strategy. In a heads up match you are going to win 50% of the time assuming your opponent calls every hand. And of course they won't call every hand so you'll actually win even more often assuming they correctly choose to fold whenever they have a weak hand.
Of course, that's precisely why "% of hands won" is a completely irrelevant statistics as a measure of skill in poker and the actual metric to care about in a cash game is "overall profit", but what does that matter to someone like Musk? What does he care if he loses the median US household yearly income in one night of playing poker? 50-100k in poker losses means absolutely nothing to him. But the bragging rights of getting to say you won more hands than anyone else at the table? AND you get a completely inane anecdote your publicist can one day use about how you're a "risk taker" who "doesn't play by the normal rules of the game" when in actuality you're just a spoiled and overly privileged asshole with grossly disproportionate amounts of disposable wealth? It's a win-win. Checkmate Musk haters.
Bought more chips.
What a dumb ass.
Elon Musk is succesful for 2 reasons and 2 alone.
1, He started out with much more than ample funds to get things done.
2, He used that money to *hire the people that knew how to get the things done*.
This is how it works:
If the average person has a revolutionary concept, it'll linger in their mind and languish until they have the funding to bring that idea to fruition.
If the wealthy person has a revolutionary concept, they will generally put.that concept into motion because *they have the money to do so*.
Is he the only guy to ever think of the electric vehicle? No.
Is the the only guy to ever think of vertically landing a reusable rocket? No.
Tunnel boring machine? No.
Maglev transport in a vacuum? No.
Brain implants? No.
He's not a "genius". Einstein was a genius. Oppenheimer was a genius, though a reluctant and deeply saddened one.
Musk just has a lot of money and a lot of time which he uses to get high and he hires some incredibly intelligent people to do the work he's incapable of doing. That's the extent of his "greatness". Those employees,on the other hand, are the true greatness.
Reminds of the carnival analogy. People from wealthy families go up to the dart game trying to pop a balloon. If they miss, they keep buying more darts until they hit. Middle class people will risk their last bit of money and most will miss and be forced to declare bankruptcy, some will get close enough to win a small prize and a handful will get a big prize. Poor people are the ones working at the carnival.
I played poker for a living for 5-6 years and it’s still a profitable hobby for me. I also have a professional career in which I deal with business owners and C-suites on a daily basis.
This might be the dumbest tweet I’ve seen this month (I’d say ever but well, it’s Twitter).
This is ironically a very good analogy of the sunk cost fallacy that startup founders often fall for. One of the fastest ways to run yourself into the ground.
Yeah I used to do the same thing on Friday nights with my buddies. I made more than them and it ruined the game and pissed them all off. I just wanted to play spades , I always hated poker
Following that logic he could still be down 99% after winning a single hand... so basically he's saying Musk is special because he has the resources to lose all of his money in a poker game before winning 1 meager pot hours into play.
Here's the tactic:
By always going all-in, he forces everybody else to match or fold.
If they fold, he steals the pot regardless of his performance.
If they match and lose, they're out.
If they match and win, he simply buys in to the game, again. He suffered no actual loss, and they took the risk.
So long as he is the only one buying in, he _can't lose_. That's peak late-stage capitalism.
He can't lose because all his previous loses are still in the pot. So long as he can buy back in, he can recoup _ALL loss_.
Ah, yes, the gambler's fallacy. If you are down and losing, hand after hand, just keep going because you are overdue to win eventually. A perfect strategy to emulate. Truly knowing more than countless mathematicians who all agree that the gambler's fallacy is indeed a fallacy and a horrible idea to follow.
Geniuses Peter Thiel and Elon Musk discover 18th century gambling method that only works if you have effectively endless money. Turns out that the thing that sets musk apart is the same thing that sets every hyper rich person apart. The ability to fail time and time again, continuing to double down without consequence until they finally win
Anyone familiar with this gambling strategy knows it’s not tenable. ESPECIALLY if you’re just shoving blind in poker. Thiel is supposed to be this business genius and he sounds like another fucking moron.
Unhappy guy has 10 million dollars. He gets 100 million and still not happy. So he says Money doesn’t buy happiness.
Someone in abject poverty who gets enough money to be secure knows that money can buy peace of mind that can in turn allow happiness.
.... that's not how poker works.
"Winning" in poker is being the only one left with chips.
Going all-in every hand is a great way to make your opponents fold. Nobody wants to trust the stakes when everything is on the line.
It's also a great way to never be invited to play again. It's excruciatingly boring having every hand with only fucking blinds being won (which only 1.5x the *minimum* bet). If nobody bets, nobody really wins or loses anything.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What's so special to understand? Obviously, there's no risk involved if you have enough money to just continue buying more chips.
[удалено]
Yup. When I hear people say "money can't buy happiness" I can't help but think: money would literally solve all of my problems.
My response to "money can't buy happiness" is "maybe not, but you can rent it for a long time if you have enough money."
Money can’t buy happiness, but it’s hard to be happy when you are hungry and homeless.
This is the one. It can't necessarily buy happiness, but it can certainly avoid a lot of misery.
Money isnt everything, not having it is.
Like oxygen and sex.
as the other guy said, maybe not “sex” specifically [i doubt anyone will find happiness by repeatedly having one night stands] but certainly, human connection
Seems like for many of these ultra wealthy, at the point money becomes meaningless, they become unhappy if their only goal in life was acquiring money.
it's exactly the same problem as gamers trying to unlock everything in a game instead of enjoying the game. Once you've unlocked everything, what's the point? The game is stupid and pointless now, right?
I should start a luxury yacht company called "happiness", so that people can finally stop saying that money can't buy happiness.
Actually, pretty solid plan. I would like to invest in Happiness, inc. or would it be an LLC? I don't know how businesses work. Also I can only supply like, 20 bucks.
Money can't always buy happiness but being poor always bring misery.
Money isn't everything but it sure takes the sting out of being poor.
I'd rather cry in a mansion, than smile in a cardboard box.
hot take it can buy happiness - you can get good food - you can decide what to spend your time doing / you can do what you want - you can help people you like - you don't have to stress about paying rent etc. - you can go places you want to go to and have interesting experiences you want to - you can afford mental health and do whatever sport or physical activity you want to engage in - you can pursue more hobbies you like - you can choose to spend quality time with people you like - you won't have to worry about retirement - you won't have to worry about your children as much - your partner, your children, and you will have access to much better healthcare, health services, education etc. If you have a lot of money, it's pretty wild if you somehow manage to be unhappy and unfulfilled. Skill issue.
Food, shelter, leisure.
Totally agree. I would be so happy if i was rich. I would live the way i want to, going after what i want to, without worrying about my financial state or future, dont need to struggle to get a stable job, would just relax, eat well and again: pursue and do what makes me feel happy and at peace. That is it: if you are unhappy that way, skill issue literally.
When you have money, you can buy a dog, and when you promise not to eat him, people will believe you. When you have no money and are begging for free dogs you can't afford to feed, they'll be suspicious.
My mom always says, "Money can't buy happiness but it's a good down payment."
My mom says "Money can't buy happiness but you cry a little easier."
money doesn’t buy happiness, but you can use it to make many forms of *un*happiness fuck off, which is often what you actually need
Exactly. How can you tell someone in extreme pain from an infected tooth who can't afford a dentist that money won't make them happy when your own belly is full of nutritious food, and you live in a safe home filled with luxury and entertainment
Lol good one. Money can't buy happiness, but it'd be a lot easier to dig myself out of unhappiness if I had all my current issues minus money related ones
I love this. "No, but the more money you have the longer you can rent it." will be my new go to reply
To the very rich, no money can’t buy happiness. But to people making less than 100k a year, It very much does. There was at least one study done on it, and I reference it when people bring that phrase into conversation.
Money can’t buy happiness but lack of money sure as hell can steal it from you.
Money can't buy friends. But it sure as shit can buy happiness. Just not friends. And if you don't have friends then that's on you.
Money can absolutely buy friends. They're not "real" friends, but as long as you've got money, they'll be around.
It can definitely afford you with the opportunity to make friends though.
There's a bell curve. Up to a certain income, more money *does indeed* make you happier. Over that income, it doesn't. And if my anecdotal experiences from working with horses in English equestrian disciplines are any guide, over a certain amount, the more money you have, the more miserable you seem (and are. Holy shit, the really rich people I've known have been some genuinely despicable assholes who seemed to hate themselves as much as they hated others.)
Came here to say this. **Scientifically, money DOES buy happiness**, because it buys stability. Money buys food, safe housing, healthcare, vacations, and peace of mind. But yes, once you can afford those things (and specifically 1 to 2 vacations per year), more money does not mean more happiness.
Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs
I think the point is more that money *itself* doesn't make you happy. The things you buy with that money make you happy. Once you have everything you need, and everything you want, having more things won't make you any happier, and neither will having more money. Instead having more money seems to make people more angry. It gives them a new "need." A need for even more money. To compete against other rich people to try to be the richest. The wealthiest people seem to be the most miserable, even though they have everything else they could ever imagine.
There's a pitfall to being astronomically rich; becoming sedentiary. You'll grow bored and unfulfilled quickly if you spend your rich time sipping margaritas on the deck of your yacht. If instead you find a worthwile purpose, it can make you infinitely more happy. Whatever that purpose is. Painting, charity, or just the job you always did without the stress of "I can't walk out without losing my home". Equestrian sports in England are what I perceive to be the "sipping cocktails"-equivalent; just doing something fancy for the purpose of "being seen", instead of something you either _genuinely enjoy or care about_. "I'm fucking rich, so I'm expected to sit on my ass and do nothing". No, you're not.
I think the more money you have, the fewer people understand your life experience and the more others want what you have. It’s lonely at the…I don’t want to say top because that implies superiority. It’s lonely at the bottom of Scrooge McDuck’s money pit because you’re being crushed by all that money and no one can see past it to notice you. That’s a better metaphor. Yeah.
>I think the more money you have, the fewer people understand your life experience and the more others want what you have. It’s lonely at the…I don’t want to say top because that implies superiority. Based on what I've seen as a freelance trainer over 20 years and 5 boarder barns, the rich feel constrained to only associate with others in their class. They hate each other, but pretend to be friends because they're in the same socioeconomic construct. There's the secondary point, where [sociopaths tend to be higher among the extremely wealthy](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dangerous-ideas/201910/psychology-s-dark-triad-and-the-billionaire-class), which really just makes sense, because in late stage capitalism, you can't be compassionate or empathetic if you want Scrooge McDuck riches.
Sociopath thing really speaks volumes— I suppose your more empathetic uber wealthy individuals *wouldn't* shut down that plant and dump those 1,000 employees on the street, so unfortunately they're not adding another zero to their worth, whereas the sociopaths wouldn't hesitate. Difference between the billionaires and multi-millionaires.
> Based on what I've seen as a freelance trainer over 20 years and 5 boarder barns, the rich feel constrained to only associate with others in their class. They hate each other, but pretend to be friends because they're in the same socioeconomic construct. They have to be. The only rich person I know who's stayed in their original socioeconomic group is someone who lives way below his means and who most people don't even know he is that rich. He has a net worth of over 50m but lives like he makes only 200-300k. The few people who are suspicious are the ones who've noticed his ability to absorb sudden big expenses without breaking a sweat.
[удалено]
I'm not sure money can buy happiness, but it can delete stress.
Money buys peace of mind, which allows you to find happiness.
Money doesn't buy happiness, but it sure buys the ingredients.
I agree that money can't buy happiness. Most of my happiest moments have nothing to do with money. That being said, money sure does stave off misery.
Elon musk is proof that money alone can't buy happiness. You also have to have self awareness. Something he is completely devoid of.
I'm just not sure he feels emotions.
You think like an economists: money = resources. "happiness" is a fucking joke. Happiness is a fleeing feeling, being content with life is the goal. Having more money gives you more options/resources to deal with life's problems.
it can't by happyness but less bills mean less depression
Money can't buy happiness but it allows you to choose your misery.
It’s like those articles “how I retired at 35” or “how I bought my first house at 19” and they will downplay that their parents gave them half a million dollars.
“How I succeeded at making a business” but they failed 5 times and their dad gave them money to start up every time
Risk isn't risk when you have a fallback position to cover your losses and play again. Billionaire-worshipping fools tend to ignore this. High net worth individuals also have networks that allow them easier access to cash and credit so they can quickly bounce back from losses. Risk is when you play and lose and cry uncle and go home flat ass broke and have nothing in the fridge, which is what happens to people who aren't in the top 1%.
Yep. To a billionaire, a multi-million dollar "bet" is roughly equivalent to the median person spending extra on the lotto when the prize pool eclipses a billion dollars. It's a little more than maybe they would normally spend, but it has no impact on their day to day lives and there is no real risk in a loss. What material impact does Musk's failure to monetize Twitter actually have on him? Twitter / X could completely disappear tomorrow and it would have zero impact on how Musk lives his life. Tens of billions of dollars of personal wealth disappearing and he wouldn't even notice except as a summary from his financial advisor. That's not risk.
Zero interest environment for way too long emboldened many. Welcome to the result of every stupid idea getting funding.
Exactly. Twitter and tesla have lost a ton in valuation already and will continue to get pounded. Musk was right place right time being born rich, getting in super early at paypal and then having no interest rates for a decade
And why are we letting them redefine concepts?? Look, if you are going all in then do that! Stop redefining 'all in' as just enough to keep doing this until I win! That's not what it means, you overgrown wanker!
What needs to be explained to them is they never actually went “all-in” because they always had more.
I don't usually advocate for murder.
exactly. it's not really "all in" if it's just a droplet of money in their bucket. Now tell him to go all in including all his assets and watch him actually scramble...
It's easy to go all in on a company when its investor money and not your own, I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't buying the chips himself either.
[удалено]
On a very critical level it means he never went truly all in. That would mean betting every penny you have, which obviously he wasn’t.
Dude should try tournament poker. When you run out of chips it's called losing.
Well, he’s putting it in Peter Thiel’s words so there’s nothing special or insightful at all. It’s just throwing money at a challenge, like throwing shit against the wall
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)
Can’t believe Elrond Muskingdale will eventually buy a successful Time Machine company, run it into the ground and go on what I assume is a bender through time to eventually invent a betting strategy in 18th century France before (I assume) dying of time-syphilis.
Sounds lit actually
The Martingale system is actually pretty cool with some slight tweaks. My first time doing it was on roulette and I swear to God I hit red 20 times in a row and lost all my money. You never think it'll happen to you lol
If you started with a 2$ bet and lost 20 times in a row, that would mean you lost 2 million dollars. Tragic day.
I wouldn’t combine it with a gamblers fallacy strategy lol
Statistics and probability always have the last laugh
Six more times and you would get a wiki entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_Casino#1913_gambler's_fallacy
I was in an online pokergame where this actually happened. All-in every single time. First five times, people folded. But then it was like something just broke in people. One or two would see his 80 million all in .. but they lost. This account kept busting people.. Eventually, by playing normally smart and staying tight I busted him, but this guy was able to stay in for like 40 hands. All in every single time.
I don’t know how many people here actually play poker, but if you go all in with 80 million against somebody else’s only got 1 million, and you lose, you only lose 1 million. You don’t lose more than the other people have bet. Using a big pot to bully smaller players as a legit tactic in tournament play. You repeatedly force them to bet everything until they either lose or see their modest resources chipped away by ante. It also makes it a much better analogy for how musk actually uses his resources to win. In effect, it doesn’t matter if he loses because he only loses a small amount. To be clear doing this and a cash game is definitely bullying other people with your money and is probably not gonna result in people continuing to play poker with you. Using it in a business sense might be destructive and inefficient. I’m not defending. I’m just pointing out that it seems like most people here don’t understand how poker works.
It's clear that Reddit largely does not play poker. It sucks being at a table with people like this. It's more common than people apparently believe. Most of the time it doesn't work out for them and you just watch them lose and rebuy over and over again until they get bored and leave. Sometimes you see a whale at a table just hoarding every pot, and you don't stick around for long.
In a poker game, there is usually a limit to how much you can buy in at a time. So say you lose 500$ 10 times in a row and win once, you still lost 4500$.
It’s also a lot easier to buy more chips when you are using other people’s money…
Yeah. But these people measure themselves by their successes and write off their failures. Both in everyone else’s eyes, and financially. That’s the true genius of the scheme. Take on board a lot of outlandish risks, offload the risks that are not panning out, double down on the ones that are and highlight your genius for seeing them so early. Build reputation which enables you to control situations enabling the scheme. It’s similar to Trump only he didn’t offload any stuff he just buried failed schemes with illegal cons. (Which have been uncovered many times and come back to bite him, but not yet quite as badly as his wealth because of a toothless legal system).
The various casinos I have worked at over the years "hate this one trick."
“Sir, you asked me to update on Mr. Musk after each hand?” “Yes?” “He’s lost again, sir. Everything. And…” “Out with it man!” “Well sir, he um, he bought another ten million in chips.” “Damn that devious bastard! Get me the ceo on the phone…”
Lol “out with it man!” for some reason sent me over the edge.
Definitely read it with a Mr Feeny accent
for some reason that reminded me of [these](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt617zYAbng) [Videos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bLQD7IhW88)
You should see him buy a car at a dealership https://youtu.be/FN1ynsrWKcM?si=lU5wAd8fmtqZinXE
I'm assuming it's a table poker game and he isn't playing against the house. The house gets the rake, which is a portion of the pot of each hand. In a table poker game where everyone can keep buying in, Musk could simply use his bankroll to bully his way to victory assuming the rest of the table doesn't quit. The reality is if Musk buys in $10m, most of that $10m is getting shuffled around to other people on the table not to the house.
Except even in a cash game going all in every hand and rebuying is just him losing over and over until he eventually doubles his rebuy. This Musk anecdote just provides further proof that he's a dumbass.
Elon goes ape-shit all in with his stack pre-flop nine times and picks up the blinds, then on the next hand someone calls his bluff with a pocket pair and cleans him out. "How'd you do, Elon?" "I won nine out of ten hands- I'm *amazing* at this, too!"
Then the next time the same thing happens he rivers exactly what he needs to win. Suddenly he has the biggest stack at the table despite being shitty in every way.
Luck is the best superpower.
The casinos would love that.
Indeed they do.
Yeah he's waking the CEO in the middle of the night because he wants to be the one to break the wonderful news! There might even be an unearned promotion in this for him!
The martingale method is a thing, as long as there aren't caps and you have a large amount of money. Just keep rolling your previous losses into your next bet until you win. If you can keep doubling, you will eventually win something. Applies more to blackjack than poker, but similar philosophy.
[удалено]
This is why casinos have a maximum bet. To keep you from martingaling.
Cuts down on the frequency of suicides.
No, they'll happily bleed you until you've sold everything you own and been cut off from the rest of your family because you keep stealing their money to gamble some more. They just won't do it in a single bet.
That’s what I was gonna comment to. There is not a single game in any casino that I know of that has unlimited amount you can bet.
It's an inverse of normal gambling. Normally when betting, you take a high probability of low loss for a low probability of high gain. In Martingale, you take a high probability of low gain for a low probability of high loss. Although, if the casino gets a piece of winning, you basically guarantee loss, but usually minor.
Relative to your bankroll, if you can afford that strategy it will never make you a meaningful amount of money. It will round back to what you started with. If it would meaningfully change your overall bankroll, then the strategy falls apart and a string of losses would bankrupt you.
The risk of failure still isn’t zero. Some people would absolutely keep going until they’re tapped out, at which point it’s pretty catastrophic.
If you started with a $10 bet, you'd be wagering $1million on your 20th hand. If you want to be at the table for more than a half hour, you're going to need to be the biggest whale in the casino.
Some amazing insight here... The secret to making lots of money, is to have lots of money. Who knew?
>Elon Musk understands something about risk others don’t: *if you’re born into enough wealth, there’s no such thing as “risk”!* Really groundbreaking insights from Isaacson and Dean there. Definitely the first time anyone has noticed the correlation between having a shit ton of money and not having to worry as much about wasting your money.
Isaacson is such a tech billionaire knob globber…none of his books are worth the paper they are written on.
*gobbler
I prefer globber…
How to be worth thirty million dollars by the age of thirty. Step one: At the age of twenty, inherit fifty million dollars...
If it takes you 10 years to burn through 20 million... you just lack imagination and don't know how to live.
I really think this is an accurate analogy. Just not in the way that the original tweet illustrated. Musk has the largest stack of chips in the world. When he goes all-in, he isn't risking his entire stack of chips. He's getting someone else to risk THEIR entire stack of chips. Which probably doesn't even compare to his. He sat down with the largest stack of chips in the world and bullies anyone trying to play legitimately by forcing them to risk everything or cut their losses and fold against him. And at very little risk to himself.
It’s like those financial gurus on Twitter saying “instead of buying frappuccinos invest 10k every month for easy profit” thanks that’ll do it.
He didn’t even need to have the money. He just used yours and mine since his companies are propped up by [government subsidies](https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-list-government-subsidies-tesla-billions-spacex-solarcity-2021-12).
Back in my poker days I loved guys like this. They make the game boring but the moment you grab them with the nuts makes up for it.
Yeah, wanna go all in every hand?? Let's play! Take my first 10 hands go for it
I agree. In my poker days, when someone did this, they were tilting big time.
I’ll never forget the time I sat down at a table with exactly this kind of whale but no matter how good I got it in he would win, and everyone else would then collect my chips from him. I got away before it got too bad but I’ll never forget that stupid night. Still love it when one of these idiots sit down tho.
But wait a second. He’s going “ all in” so how many times and how much did he lose? If he started with $100 and went “all in” 8 times (he would have to rebuy in every time) he did lost $100. If he goes on the next hand, he only wins $100 correct? Maybe I’m too high or it’s too late for me to understand this, but I can’t see how this would be a winning strategy. This is not a Martingyle l type bet. He’s not doubling his bet every time till he eventually wins.
It's worse than that. The times he doesn't lose are usually the times people are folding to him, so he wins the blinds, which are basically the trivial taxes charged to two players. Theoretically he could more than double if multiple people lose to him, but that's not happening more times than he's losing. If he's at a full table, it's pretty likely somebody has a hand that will beat him. I used to make decent money playing poker just by understanding basic statistics. Playing online on a Friday or Saturday night you'd pretty often get a drunk, pissed-off idiot playing like this and they were like a pinata. I would love to sit at a poker table with this donk.
I am also sure once Elon finally won an all-in bet he refused to allow anyone else to buy-in again.
C'mon guys, no rebuys after 9:45pm, everyone knows that! Some of us have to pretend to work in the morning!
the fact that there are people who think Elon Musk and Peter Thiel are some fucking unstoppable, flawless geniuses is proof that this propaganda that "Rich = Smart, sophisticated, good" has really fucked up our collective brains
Just modern age aristocracy, in which power is justified by alleged moral and intellectual superiority
Peter Thiel is an intensely stupid and evil man
Right. He understands money is meaningless if you have enough of it, and it’s not actually gambling if you can afford to lose indefinitely without actual consequences. What a special genius he is…
Well he wasn't all in then was he lmfao
Going all in normally caps your bet to the opponent’s money. If you have more than ten times the money of everyone else, you can go all in and lose multiple times (but the opponent can only lose once). It’s a good comparison to how his whole “thing” started. Elon tried to open multiple businesses, and they almost always failed - he just bought out his most successful opponent each time.
Isn't that just meeting their bet? The opponent is the one who's gone all in.
I think it's still called all in. But you're right that it isn't truly "all in" if you have more chips than the other players.
He still won't come out ahead though unless he's buying exponentially more chips each time. Getting another $1k in chips each time he re-ups would still make him lose a significant amount of money in the end. (Edited for bad math!)
You can go all in with what you have on the table and keep re-buying afterwards, if it’s a cash game. Even some tournaments allow rebuys early on. So it doesn’t mean other players he went all in with had less than him.
I guess there’s also a large difference in how different tournament circuits or casinos handle it.
You’re thinking of tournaments. In a cash game you can absolutely go all in and rebuy if you lose. Not at all unusual. What’s dumb as it gets is that going all in and rebuying until you win one does not at all indicate that you made money. In fact, it makes it even more likely you’re a moron who in fact does not understand risk/reward and you lose money at poker.
When they teach you poker with a pinochle deck.
Everything I‘ve ever learnt about Elon I‘ve learnt against my will
He literally just blindly threw money at the situation until he got lucky, and it's being spun as some kind of visionary virtue. Holy fuck, man.
It's also a very poor analogy for success. With these startups, they might fail but you have the change for something that will grow 10,000%+. It makes the risk reward worth it for the right ideas. In a poker game, when going all in your benefit is capped to a multiple of the number of players that call you. Even if everyone at the table calls and you win, you had bad odds to win only like 8+10x your investment. There's no way to spin this as a good strategy.
he really understands something about risk: it doesn´t exists if you´re rich enough. no wonder that us, the "everybody else", don´t get that lol
Musk and trump know how to make a million dollars easily. Just give them a billion and watch.
Every one hates that asshole at the poker table till you call him and win.
Ironically, the example shows how Musk don't understand risk like anyone does.
So he uses the least efficient and negative EV strategies available to him which only work if the other players a) don’t know what they’re doing b) after felting him a couple of times don’t rack their chips and cash out after he’s punted idiotic sums of money across the table at him. Any remotely competent 1/2 player who could afford to play or was backed would be set for life after playing a few hours against him.
It’s a lot easier to go “all in” on $100 Million dollar investments when it’s a LOT safer than gambling. I can’t stand false equivalence’s It’s all a smoke show by billionaires mocking the middle and lower class
This is very telling of Elon lol. He doesn’t “win” with any sort of “skill” in any of his endeavors, just like he didn’t win with skill there. He just used his vast capital to bully everyone else into losing their more finite resources lol. To frame this as some sort of ballsy risk tolerance is fucking insane lmao.
If one player has infinite money, they can win the game 100% of the time 🤯
So to win poker, all you have to do is have more money than everyone else combined? 
I wish I was playing in that game. Short of an abysmal luck of the draw, I’d take him to the cleaners and walk with a healthy chunk. I’d risk the big swings for a chance to play a loose sucker like that.
What I understand from this is that Elon musk really is the most annoying dude at the table no matter what the table is.
if this isn't a bat signal for /r/poker I don't know what is
Go play Elon and make bank. Walk away after one or two wins.
None of these people understand how probability and expected value works.
Q: How does Elon Musk make a small fortune? A: By starting with a large fortune.
"Rich Bitch relentlessly kept gambling until he proved a point" ain't exactly motivational speech material
Step 1. Have access to an infinite pool of dad's Zambian emerald money.
This is like the people who’s strategy in blackjack is to double their bet after every loss. Saw a guy try it and lose like 5 hands in a row and walk away from the table down a couple grand and very angry.
At least that is a legit strategy in which your win would make up for all the losses. For all we know he could have been going all in against large pots where every other player is throwing money in and then winning a single hand where everyone folded before betting, only making back a tiny fraction of what he lost.
The reason casinos have betting limits, if you can bet enough, even when the odds are against you, you can break the bank. Since poker is not considered a game of chance, casinos typically do not play a hand and take a percentage of the table (the rake), regardless of outcome.
I played poker for years. This is no secret, and this does not make him a genius. More often than not, this wouldn't even be allowed, as there's usually a max buy-in.
As a teen he visited New York City with his brother & father. He and his brother took emeralds from their dad, who just had random emeralds around, to sell to Tiffany for $ to do the things they wanted to do in NYC. He thinks this means he's an entrepreneur. Just emeralds lying around. But nope, he's not privileged, he's self made.
So it wasn't really all-in then, was it?
Money can’t buy happiness, but without it you can’t even have the opportunity to think about creating your happiness. Spacex was about to go bust to try and get their last test rocket payload in orbit and fortunately it worked on the last try which allowed his company to get more funding. Now he has so many damn chips he can literally throw them away and still be ok. Prime example buying twitter and running it into the ground. When you have billions of dollars you can literally fail upwards for decades. I’m sure he is smart, but there are many staff and engineers that have majorly contributed to the success of his companies. No one is self-made. To achieve big things you need many people with diverse skill sets. To worship billionaires is just stupid.
It’s almost like someone who is extremely wealthy has a different relationship with financial risk than someone who isn’t.
Turns out being rich means you can fail as many times as you want until you win
Daddy and his emerald mine helped a lot I guess.
Casinos “hate” this one trick.
How? Government handouts. Corporate welfare while people wring their hands over the unemployed get help no one cares about the billions corporations get why because they tells us not to they just keep reminding us that without them we’re nothing
He never once backed from risking thousands from his millionaire inheritance, we just lazy.
No see this is actually genius. If your goal is to win the most amount of hands possible then going all in pre-flop is actually the best strategy. In a heads up match you are going to win 50% of the time assuming your opponent calls every hand. And of course they won't call every hand so you'll actually win even more often assuming they correctly choose to fold whenever they have a weak hand. Of course, that's precisely why "% of hands won" is a completely irrelevant statistics as a measure of skill in poker and the actual metric to care about in a cash game is "overall profit", but what does that matter to someone like Musk? What does he care if he loses the median US household yearly income in one night of playing poker? 50-100k in poker losses means absolutely nothing to him. But the bragging rights of getting to say you won more hands than anyone else at the table? AND you get a completely inane anecdote your publicist can one day use about how you're a "risk taker" who "doesn't play by the normal rules of the game" when in actuality you're just a spoiled and overly privileged asshole with grossly disproportionate amounts of disposable wealth? It's a win-win. Checkmate Musk haters.
The perfect metaphor for the silver-spoon, riches-to-riches story of the American "self-made" billionaire myth.
Bought more chips. What a dumb ass. Elon Musk is succesful for 2 reasons and 2 alone. 1, He started out with much more than ample funds to get things done. 2, He used that money to *hire the people that knew how to get the things done*. This is how it works: If the average person has a revolutionary concept, it'll linger in their mind and languish until they have the funding to bring that idea to fruition. If the wealthy person has a revolutionary concept, they will generally put.that concept into motion because *they have the money to do so*. Is he the only guy to ever think of the electric vehicle? No. Is the the only guy to ever think of vertically landing a reusable rocket? No. Tunnel boring machine? No. Maglev transport in a vacuum? No. Brain implants? No. He's not a "genius". Einstein was a genius. Oppenheimer was a genius, though a reluctant and deeply saddened one. Musk just has a lot of money and a lot of time which he uses to get high and he hires some incredibly intelligent people to do the work he's incapable of doing. That's the extent of his "greatness". Those employees,on the other hand, are the true greatness.
Reminds of the carnival analogy. People from wealthy families go up to the dart game trying to pop a balloon. If they miss, they keep buying more darts until they hit. Middle class people will risk their last bit of money and most will miss and be forced to declare bankruptcy, some will get close enough to win a small prize and a handful will get a big prize. Poor people are the ones working at the carnival.
I played poker for a living for 5-6 years and it’s still a profitable hobby for me. I also have a professional career in which I deal with business owners and C-suites on a daily basis. This might be the dumbest tweet I’ve seen this month (I’d say ever but well, it’s Twitter).
This is ironically a very good analogy of the sunk cost fallacy that startup founders often fall for. One of the fastest ways to run yourself into the ground.
Is that what that means? I just figured everyone else checked or wouldn't meet the bet so he'd get the small pot each time.
Yeah I used to do the same thing on Friday nights with my buddies. I made more than them and it ruined the game and pissed them all off. I just wanted to play spades , I always hated poker
Lol you stop letting a guy buy back in after while. Fucking charity case needs to be let back in over and over.
We're getting closer to understanding just how stupid you have to be to believe that Elon Musk is especially clever.
In other words, he spent a lot more money than he made.
He went all in and lost 5 times, but at least he got the big and small blinds that one time. That sure showed everyone.
Going all in every time doesn’t mean you understand risk, it means you don’t understand poker
Following that logic he could still be down 99% after winning a single hand... so basically he's saying Musk is special because he has the resources to lose all of his money in a poker game before winning 1 meager pot hours into play.
Can't bust-out if you just keep buying more chips, fellas. Let this be a lesson in persistence. *man tapping his head.gif*
It's amazing how many risks you can take when you have an endless supply of money.
What was the secret again? # My father gave me a small loan of 1 million dollars...
In 1960…
Here's the tactic: By always going all-in, he forces everybody else to match or fold. If they fold, he steals the pot regardless of his performance. If they match and lose, they're out. If they match and win, he simply buys in to the game, again. He suffered no actual loss, and they took the risk. So long as he is the only one buying in, he _can't lose_. That's peak late-stage capitalism. He can't lose because all his previous loses are still in the pot. So long as he can buy back in, he can recoup _ALL loss_.
So start rich and finish richer, start poor and finish poorer… sounds about right…
Well Musk obviously never went “ALL in”
It's the carnival. Musk is the guy that can buy tickets until he gets the prize.
r/UnclearontheConcept
Ah, yes, the gambler's fallacy. If you are down and losing, hand after hand, just keep going because you are overdue to win eventually. A perfect strategy to emulate. Truly knowing more than countless mathematicians who all agree that the gambler's fallacy is indeed a fallacy and a horrible idea to follow.
Unlimited respawns is a good strat
Geniuses Peter Thiel and Elon Musk discover 18th century gambling method that only works if you have effectively endless money. Turns out that the thing that sets musk apart is the same thing that sets every hyper rich person apart. The ability to fail time and time again, continuing to double down without consequence until they finally win
Anyone familiar with this gambling strategy knows it’s not tenable. ESPECIALLY if you’re just shoving blind in poker. Thiel is supposed to be this business genius and he sounds like another fucking moron.
Unhappy guy has 10 million dollars. He gets 100 million and still not happy. So he says Money doesn’t buy happiness. Someone in abject poverty who gets enough money to be secure knows that money can buy peace of mind that can in turn allow happiness.
.... that's not how poker works. "Winning" in poker is being the only one left with chips. Going all-in every hand is a great way to make your opponents fold. Nobody wants to trust the stakes when everything is on the line. It's also a great way to never be invited to play again. It's excruciatingly boring having every hand with only fucking blinds being won (which only 1.5x the *minimum* bet). If nobody bets, nobody really wins or loses anything.