Thread replies: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: chance.png (11KB, 1152x648px) Image search:
[Google]
11KB, 1152x648px
I don't think it's possible to make a valid economical calculation based on chance for an event that doesn't repeat.
Examples
>It is known that about 50% of babies born are male. But. There is no valid argument to say "Your wife's next baby has a 50% chance to be a boy."
>If we succeed, we will win 1 million dollars. If we fail, we will lose 3 million dollars. Chance of success is 80% and chance of failure is 20%. There is no valid way to argue which choice you should do.
>>
>>9057917
>There is no valid way to argue which choice you should do.
isnt this more a testament to how people treat risk differently?
>>
>>9057917
>It is known that about 50% of babies born are male. But. There is no valid argument to say "Your wife's next baby has a 50% chance to be a boy."
Given no other information, your wife's next baby has a 50% chance to be a boy.
>If we succeed, we will win 1 million dollars. If we fail, we will lose 3 million dollars. Chance of success is 80% and chance of failure is 20%. There is no valid way to argue which choice you should do.
On average you will win $200,000. A risk neutral and linear utility function leads to the correct choice being to the the gamble. The correct choice is dependent on the expected utility function of the person making the decision.
Thread posts: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1