Man Tries To Win Xbox Kinect, Loses Life Savings

How much would you spend to try to win a new Kinect? $10? $20? If your answer is $2600, you are probably Henry Gribbohm, a man who says he lost his life savings trying to win the motion-sensing Xbox accessory.

Gribbohm, who went to a carnival and sat down at one of those clearly rigged games in an attempt to snag a Kinect -- which typically retails for $200 or so -- told WBZ-TV that he spent $300 on the game, lost, went home, got another $2300,and spent it all. He did not win an Xbox Kinect.

He did win a banana. (Pictured above.)

Gribbohm claims the contest was rigged -- and he's filed a police report, according to WBZ-TV -- but, really, $2600? Come on, dude.

[Gawker]


Comments

    I know obvious question is obvious, but...why didn't he just buy one?

      Sunken costs.

      There was an experiment done with economics students where they had to bid in dollar amounts for a $10 note. They had to pay their bids, even if they lost. The final bid was much, much more than $10 because they figured that if they won, they'd slightly regain their losses.

      Happens in most forms of gambling too. People committing to pots in poker that they're almost definitely going to lose (or straight up have lost) because they've already sunk so much in.

      People find it incredibly hard to cut their losses.

        Yep- but it still takes a special kind of stupid not to call it quits once you reach somewhere over about 300% of the initial cost….. he went WELL beyond that!

        Yeah that's basically the hardest thing about poker, and the thing which experienced players are least likely to teach. In poker, as in business, you have to realise a poor investment and cut your losses.

        Write that down.

          Once the money is in the pot, it's not your money any more.

            The poker analogy isn't just about cutting losses, it's to do with pot odds. No player puts in money if they KNOW they've lost, a good player will evaluate the odds of winning the hand vs the potential winnings and bet/fold accordingly.

              Poker is almost as much luck as it is odds and 'skill.' I once folded on an unsuited 2/7, it was the smart thing to do, you don't bet with that hand. Had I stayed in I would have ended up with a full house and won, what was up to that point, the biggest pot of the night.

                Personally I think that's flawed logic though. Success in poker is played over the long term. The person who makes the most money is rarely the person winning "big pots".

              Except when bluffing.

                You could consider bluffing as part of the odds of winning (ie. the odds that your bet will result in your opponent folding), but I take your point.

                Professional bluffing though is not just trying to trick your opponent at random. You still have to analyze the odds versus what your opponent 'thinks' your odds of winning are. If it appears to the opponent that you 'could' have a good chance of winning then you can make a bluff. If the cards your opponent sees look like low odds of winning then it's not a smart move to bluff.

                  A good example is 2 aces on the table, there is a believable chance you have the third ace. Betting an amount that would make your opponent believe you have the third ace would be a good bluff.

        Pot committed, such a useful analogy. The messed up thing is, even when you're aware of the effect, you're still influenced by it.

    I can almost understand trying until you have spent $200, and maybe even spending the other $100 in your pocket chasing your loss.

    The game probably was rigged, most games like that are to a degree. People actually travel around to figure these games out and there's video evidence of the games cheating people out of prizes.

    But it's not even as though he was in with a chance of getting any of that money back. He was prepared to lose $2600 to win a $200 toy. That makes him an idiot.

      He went double or nothing multiple times to try and get hit cash back. Generally, if someone accepts a bet of double or nothing, you know the odds are stacked against you.

      If you can't figure out how to win in the toss a ball into the tub you should probably just give up on life.

      High angle, slow toss that lands on the side of the tub rather than the bottom. You will win 100% of the time. I got one of those bananas in Vegas for a grand total of $12 and a large Domo for $3

      Last edited 06/05/13 9:45 pm

    It's crazy that he put that much money into the machine for the chance to win a $150 accessory, but it reamins possible the machine was rigged.

      All the owners would need to do to prove it wasn’t rigged is explain that it is physically possible.

      With a prize that expensive at a carnival it should be expected that your chances of winning are almost nil.
      The chance of winning the lotto is approximately 1 in 13,983,816- at about $8 a ticket you’re statistically likely to blow a LOT of cash before you reclaim any of your losses. It doesn’t mean it’s rigged, just that you’re an idiot if you keep trying.

        I'm not saying its rigged because the guy lost $2600, but merely possible because those machines are routinely found to be rigged. One of the commenters in the gawker article provided a link if your interested.

    Ah America you done it again.

    Last edited 01/05/13 2:12 pm

    Life savings

    $2,600

    Hope he wasn't planning to retire anytime soon :P

      agreed, to be stupid enough to put yourself in a situation like this... you deserve to lose

      It used to be $260, 000 but he spent most of it trying to win a ps move at a fete.

      Probably not uncommon.

      I'd have about that amount of money, granted I have a lot more money in assets (car, motorbike, house, general assets, superannuation, novelty sized banana), but as far as spare cash goes, I'd say I would have around that mark. It's quite depressing really, I gotta stop buying random shit on ebay.

        Yeah i'm in the same boat, it's not that strange among people trying to pay off large assets like mortgages.

        This bloke doesn't strike me as an investor though....

    Wait, he's pushing a baby stroller. Who let him breed?!

      He won a baby at the fair, but lost it on the next roll.

    I think the greater loss would have been his disappointment should he have won the Kinect

    I would imagine there was a point where he decided to continue even though he knew it was impossible to win, with the full intention of suing the machine makers.

    He looks pretty old so to have a 2.6k life savings is pretty concerning, I think the judge should assign him a financial adviser through cost of the carnival and hey he got something in return...some kids walk away with nothing

    The video says he went back to complain the next day and he got $600 back (and the banana).

    He only had 2.6k left because he sunk his money into THIS clip
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH5ay10RTGY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    My God. Stories like this frustrate me. Is it not worthy enough to have the money to actually pay for a Kinect satisfying enough? Nooooo you have to win it as well.... Wake up moron!

    I think we are all missing the main issue here - that stuffed banana has dreadlocks :O

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now