3 ms·

Mike Goldman does not need to ever issue a challenge again. It is WIDELY agreed upon by people who engage in this activity regularly (known as "prop betting")

Mike Goldman does not need to ever issue a challenge again. It is WIDELY agreed upon by people who engage in this activity regularly (known as "prop betting") that the spirit of the law does not matter one bit. He was way out of his element here and Patrick was well within his rights to do what he did.

dustyleary 14y ago
A great set of stories from an amazing life: http://www.amazon.com/Amarillo-Slim-World-Full-People/dp/B000GG4GS0 http://www.amazon.com/Amarillo-Slim-World-Full-People/dp/B00... Amarillo Slim engaged in these sort of prop bets all the time. Some of the more interesting stories where he "abuses the rules": * He bet that he could hit a golf ball a mile, "as long as bounces and rolls are allowed... flat ground of course"... When the wager was accepted, he teed off at a frozen pond, where it wasn't that difficult to accomplish. * Two variations on beating a champion at their own game: - Slim played Minnesota Fats at pool, "as long as I can provide the cue sticks"... And then beat Fats when they both had to play with broomsticks instead of real pool cues. - Slim bet that he could beat a very good ping pong player, "as long as I get to pick the rackets"... When the wager was accepted, Slim brought two identical cast iron skillets and let his opponent pick which "racket" he wanted. Without having practiced, his opponent didn't stand a chance. -- Later, someone else approached Slim and wanted to do the same bet. They had heard of the original bet, and had an Asian pingpong champion "ringer". (It seems pitifully obvious to me that Slim wouldn't pull the same trick after the story was out, but apparently this gambler had his Asian ringer practice with a skillet and thought he would be "safe")... For the second bet, Slim used "standard" Coca-Cola bottles, and won again.
SatvikBeri 14y ago
I love working with people like Patrick. In business, it's really easy to get caught up with assumptions, and come up with a design that does X, Y, and Z when all you really need is X. It's the people who're good at thinking outside the box and looking at the letter of the law, so to speak, who can take a step back and say "all we really need is X."

dustyleary 14y ago

A great set of stories from an amazing life: http://www.amazon.com/Amarillo-Slim-World-Full-People/dp/B000GG4GS0 http://www.amazon.com/Amarillo-Slim-World-Full-People/dp/B00... Amarillo Slim engaged in these sort of prop bets all the time. Some of the more interesting stories where he "abuses the rules": * He bet that he could hit a golf ball a mile, "as long as bounces and rolls are allowed... flat ground of course"... When the wager was accepted, he teed off at a frozen pond, where it wasn't that difficult to accomplish. * Two variations on beating a champion at their own game: - Slim played Minnesota Fats at pool, "as long as I can provide the cue sticks"... And then beat Fats when they both had to play with broomsticks instead of real pool cues. - Slim bet that he could beat a very good ping pong player, "as long as I get to pick the rackets"... When the wager was accepted, Slim brought two identical cast iron skillets and let his opponent pick which "racket" he wanted. Without having practiced, his opponent didn't stand a chance. -- Later, someone else approached Slim and wanted to do the same bet. They had heard of the original bet, and had an Asian pingpong champion "ringer". (It seems pitifully obvious to me that Slim wouldn't pull the same trick after the story was out, but apparently this gambler had his Asian ringer practice with a skillet and thought he would be "safe")... For the second bet, Slim used "standard" Coca-Cola bottles, and won again.

SatvikBeri 14y ago

I love working with people like Patrick. In business, it's really easy to get caught up with assumptions, and come up with a design that does X, Y, and Z when all you really need is X. It's the people who're good at thinking outside the box and looking at the letter of the law, so to speak, who can take a step back and say "all we really need is X."