::  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:

Cops on Public Transportation

I wrote a post about American moral panics about fare evasion two months ago, which was mirrored on Streetsblog. I made a mistake in that post that I’d like to correct – and yet the correction itself showcases something interesting about why there are arm…

via Pedestrian Observations January 17, 2020

A foolish consistency

“The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them. But why should you ke…

via Holly Elmore January 5, 2020

Algorithms interviews: theory vs. practice

When I ask people at trendy big tech companies why algorithms quizzes are mandatory, the most common answer I get is something like "we have so much scale, we can't afford to have someone accidentally write an O(n^2) algorithm and bring the site d…

via Posts on Dan Luu January 5, 2020

more     (via openring)

More Posts:


  ::  Posts  ::  RSS  ::  ◂◂RSS  ::  Contact