Hacker News Reader

Comment by nodesocket | Hacker News Reader

Somewhat unrelated, but there is a great documentary on Michael Larson; who figured out a software randomness flaw in the game show Press Your Luck, and exploited it live on TV to the tune of $110,000. In that day, $110,000 was an obscene amount of money to win on a gameshow. No game show was awarding even close to that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzNMCXWCZzQ

View on HN

The big thing about the Press Your Luck incident that people seem to overlook is that finding the flaw was half of the con, exploiting the flaw was the much harder part. (that is, getting selected to being onto the show, answering the toss-up questions, and getting the patterns/timing correct). It was more-or-less luck that everything worked correctly, and as noted in the documentary, the con almost failed at each point.

The Monopoly incident in comparison is just boring manipulation of insider information.

Can you explain the con and how to exploit it? Seems interesting.

Suggested viewing: documentary about that day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzNMCXWCZzQ

Wikipedia has a good written summary of the con: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Larson

The linked documentary is well worth watching, though.

Thank you, I tired watching the video, but wasn't that invested in the whole thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Larson#Preparations). That was pretty straight-forward and kinda simple. I wonder why the selections and big money squares were not randomized, could it had been a computing limitation?

> I wonder why the selections and big money squares were not randomized, could it had been a computing limitation?

Keep in mind that this happened in 1984. The board squares were physical panels, and the panel selection software was analog.

In gaming, a random outcome is one the player can't accurately predict or influence. The Press Your Luck board at the time fit that definition, but Larson proved that was not a safe assumption.

Agreed about the documentary. I don't think it's fair to describe this as a "con", though. Larson merely spotted a consistency in the game, and played it to maximum effect. All perfectly within the rules and regulations, no deception or "con" involved - and hence no reason for CBS not to pay out, which they did.

As the documentary points out, they just didn't think that anyone would be able to "aim and hit" the square they wanted - but they were mistaken, and paid for that complacency. They did not make the mistake a second time.

> and getting the patterns/timing correct

As a kid, I was banned from an arcade in my home town for being a bit too good on a certain ticket giving arcade machine (probably around 1995)

The manager was having to reload the machine with tickets too often when I was on it, it actually got to the point where she was standing behind me, watching me win the jackpot probably 2 out of 3 games... after winning several hundred dollars worth of prizes/tickets, I was awarded my tickets and asked not to return.

I actually did my Christmas shopping that year at the prize counter with tickets.

Also mostly unrelated, but a fun read... here is an article from 1986 about Frank Maggio beating a scratch off promotion to the tune of millions of dollars through a combination of finding a pattern in the way they were printed, and the loose rules of the game: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-19/news/mn-1227_1_scratc...

Another article I read said he later went on to settle for "undisclosed amount of millions of dollars".

I don't think they are at all related.

Michael Larson wasn't a theft. He played fair and square and got no unfair advantages. He broke no rules and collected his winnings.

The McDonalds guy just stole a bunch of pieces, gave back the money he made, and went to jail.

They have nothing to do with each other.

That reminds me of a situation on the Price is Right where someone figured out the pattern.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a7922/price-is-right-pe...

Thanks for that, this was my favorite show when I was young, and I thought I was pretty good at the prices; I'm glad to know that there was a pattern behind it, so there was something to be good at. :)

Odd and also somewhat unrelated, Peter Tomarken is the brother of my next door neighbor growing up. I used to go over to their house and have tea. I knew his brother was a game show host, but didn't know what show or anything... weird to see that pop up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com