3 ms·

I guess they thought I produced the bluffing player's card to prevent the other player from folding. But you're right that a dealer who was trying to do that co

I guess they thought I produced the bluffing player's card to prevent the other player from folding. But you're right that a dealer who was trying to do that could've done so in any number of subtle ways. I couldn't really figure out why they were accusing me at the time, or what I would've gained from it, but it all happened very fast. There are dealers who are true shuffle mechanics and either know for sure or have a very good idea of who has what. I'm not that skilled. I re-watched the movie "Casino" recently, and there's a scene where the Joe Pesci character cans a floor man for not stopping a slot machine run after the first or second time someone hits a jackpot in a night. Paraphrasing the movie: "Either he was in on or he's a fucking moron, either way we can't have him here". To bring it back to the original topic, I think in the gambling world, the default assumption is that there's a scam and the employee is guilty until proven innocent. I wonder why that wouldn't apply to a shady firm like Alameda, too, unless management was "in on it". Come to think of it, I guess that's the point of my story, which I didn't realize when I wrote it.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> there's a scene where the Joe Pesci character cans a floor man for not stopping a slot machine run Robert de Niro. Joe Pesci plays a thug.
- noduerme 3y ago
  Yeah. You're right, de Niro is the one who makes that analysis.
mbreese 3y ago
> the default assumption is that there's a scam and the employee is guilty until proven innocent. To answer your real question - my guess is that this was a place that had a history of moving fast and breaking things. But probably more importantly - there was no way for that person to benefit from the mistake. The BTC price recovered automatically through the quick arbitrage market. The only way they could have benefited would have been if they were the counter party in the sale, which is highly unlikely. Now, why FTX was a place that operated like this is another question altogether.
- noduerme 3y ago
  Why do you think they didn't have a counterparty with a lot of purchases queued up at certain trigger levels on the exchange? It would have been an easy way to make a lot of money. Then blame a nameless employee for an honest mistake and come out looking as if they'd just absorbed a loss for moving too fast.
  - mbreese 3y ago
    Namely because it would have been too obvious. To have this work, that person would have to have set limits well below anyone else. So low that it would have been obvious when someone just so happened to offer BTC at a much reduced price. There is nothing that says the BTC “mistake” wasn’t a fraud. But for it to have worked (and you’d only have one shot), the setup would have needed to be clear to outside observers. The other argument for it being a mistake is that if you really wanted to have exploited Alameda/FTX (not sure which, or if there was a distinction), the person could have tried to take more. The amount is small enough to be a “mistake”, but not large enough to make the higher ups question it. Maybe the gains would have been enough for a corrupt party, but something makes me doubt it.
    - noduerme 3y ago
      You wouldn't necessarily need to have those buy orders in place the day before. You could time them to go in at $10k if BTC fell below $13k, for instance. Even the exchange might not detect that if it were done carefully. Meanwhile, I just find it hard to believe that the accepted narrative - backed up by this story - is that SBF lost $10M in this little fuckup and pardoned the employee who made the error. Seriously? This article? How did he know the employee was innocent, how was that proven to be a mistake, and what happened to the employee? Seems even more plausible given this paper-thin explanation that the flash crash was deliberately triggered to move some money off book. The fat fingered employee, if they exist, gets the blame and is nobly pardoned. I certainly would hope the FBI is putting together a list of all the unrelated counterparties who profited during that event, just to rule out related ones.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> there's a scene where the Joe Pesci character cans a floor man for not stopping a slot machine run Robert de Niro. Joe Pesci plays a thug.

noduerme 3y ago
Yeah. You're right, de Niro is the one who makes that analysis.

mbreese 3y ago

> the default assumption is that there's a scam and the employee is guilty until proven innocent. To answer your real question - my guess is that this was a place that had a history of moving fast and breaking things. But probably more importantly - there was no way for that person to benefit from the mistake. The BTC price recovered automatically through the quick arbitrage market. The only way they could have benefited would have been if they were the counter party in the sale, which is highly unlikely. Now, why FTX was a place that operated like this is another question altogether.

noduerme 3y ago
Why do you think they didn't have a counterparty with a lot of purchases queued up at certain trigger levels on the exchange? It would have been an easy way to make a lot of money. Then blame a nameless employee for an honest mistake and come out looking as if they'd just absorbed a loss for moving too fast.
- mbreese 3y ago
  Namely because it would have been too obvious. To have this work, that person would have to have set limits well below anyone else. So low that it would have been obvious when someone just so happened to offer BTC at a much reduced price. There is nothing that says the BTC “mistake” wasn’t a fraud. But for it to have worked (and you’d only have one shot), the setup would have needed to be clear to outside observers. The other argument for it being a mistake is that if you really wanted to have exploited Alameda/FTX (not sure which, or if there was a distinction), the person could have tried to take more. The amount is small enough to be a “mistake”, but not large enough to make the higher ups question it. Maybe the gains would have been enough for a corrupt party, but something makes me doubt it.
  - noduerme 3y ago
    You wouldn't necessarily need to have those buy orders in place the day before. You could time them to go in at $10k if BTC fell below $13k, for instance. Even the exchange might not detect that if it were done carefully. Meanwhile, I just find it hard to believe that the accepted narrative - backed up by this story - is that SBF lost $10M in this little fuckup and pardoned the employee who made the error. Seriously? This article? How did he know the employee was innocent, how was that proven to be a mistake, and what happened to the employee? Seems even more plausible given this paper-thin explanation that the flash crash was deliberately triggered to move some money off book. The fat fingered employee, if they exist, gets the blame and is nobly pardoned. I certainly would hope the FBI is putting together a list of all the unrelated counterparties who profited during that event, just to rule out related ones.