• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Rebrand Betting as a Guarantee

    December 12th, 2013
    betting, ideas  [html]
    A: I hear the Red Sox are playing the Yankees again.
    B: You "hear"? I keep talking about it!
    A: Well, yeah. Sorry! Who's going to win?
    B: The Sox, obviously. Though to be fair the bookies are giving them even odds.
    A: Want to bet on it?
    B: Sure. $10 that they win?
    A: If the Sox win, how will you feel?
    B: Awesome.
    A: And if they lose?
    B: Depressed.
    A: So shouldn't you be betting me $10 that they'll lose?
    B: Because then if they lose I'll at least have $10 and if they win I won't care about the $10, reducing my variance? That's logically correct, but it's also disloyal.
    A: What if I sell you a guarantee that the Sox win? Like insurance?
    B: Like I pay you $10 now, and if they lose you give me my money back? I'm not an idiot.
    A: No, you pay me $10 now, and if they lose I'll give you double your money back.
    B: Actually, that seems fair...

    To bet implies you think something is going to happen, and that by your internal estimate of probabilities you expect to come out ahead. So when people talk about insurance as betting it seems strange: flood insurance is a bet that my house will flood? Why would I bet that my house is going to flood? That would be terrible! With gurarantees and insurance, however, people can take exactly the same financial positions but view them differently:

    do nothing bet that Sox win bet that Sox lose buy guarantee that Sox win
    Sox win $0, happy +$10, happy -$10, happy -$10, happy
    Sox lose $0, sad -$10, sad +$10, sad +$10, sad
    There's no difference here between "bet that Sox lose" and "buy guarantee that Sox win" but at least to my non-sports-betting ear only the first sounds disloyal.

    Comment via: google plus, facebook

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    Who Should Bear the Risk in Infrastructure Projects?

    The answer to the question is the public sector, always. It’s okay to have private-sector involvement in construction, but the risk must be borne by the public sector, or else the private sector will just want more money to compensate for the extra risk. …

    via Pedestrian Observations November 30, 2020

    Fireside Friday, November 27, 2020

    Hey folks! Fireside this week. A bit of a change-up in terms of the coming attractions. I had planned to start “Textiles, How Did They Make It?” next, but I want to do a bit more reading on some of the initial stages of textile production (that is, the pr…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry November 27, 2020

    Thoughts you mightn't have thunk about remote meetings

    Welcome to this week's edition of "building a startup in 2020," in which all your meetings are suddenly remote, and you probably weren't prepared for it. I know I wasn't. We started a "fully remote" company back in 2019, but …

    via apenwarr November 23, 2020

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact