http://i.imgur.com/O4rZd.jpg
and go.
Printable View
http://i.imgur.com/O4rZd.jpg
and go.
press Red one hundred times.
EZ game
Great apes make sophisticated decisions: Research suggests that great apes are capable of calculating the odds before taking risks
nah, press green 100 times. variance should even out pretty nicely.
but i probably wouldn't press either in fear of the trap door opening under my feet into a den of hungry bears.
you can't fool me, evil bikes.
I pressed red, nothing happened. Where is my mil'?
A million would change my life dramatically in a meaningful way (buy a house, pay off student loans, put away money for my sons education), plus a little fun.
100 million would change my life in those same meaningful ways, plus a lot more fun ones.
I'd take the definite meaningful changes over the chance at still being broke. Easy game.
A million dollars I didn't earn ain't worth shit to me.
If you discovered a million dollars (or equivalent in Euros or gold coins or whatever) do you:
a) Take it to the police
or
b) Keep it
or
c) Other, explain.
Get your own thread Eug, bikes askes the questions in this one, don't change the game.
Every part of me wants the green button but I couldn't take the loss, so I go with red
god this is so hard.
Easy green button IMO
100% chance of my life becoming more comfortable for the next 5-10 years, as long as i stay within my current living standards.
50% chance of having a ridiculous balling life until i die.
50% chance of staying the same.
i think i gotta go green.
red, I'll probably run it up to 100 anyway
My gut reaction was green. I think if my life was quite a bit worse, like I had somehow accumulated tens of thousands in credit card debt, I had crazy medical bills, or I had a family that I couldn't care for, the red button is an easy pick. But I'm young, don't have insurmountable debt, and I'm enjoying life as is, so the green button ftw.
Easy RED
My dad has paid all of my living expenses for the past 5 years, plus kicking in where my student loans didn't, so I estimate $100k in debt to my awesome dad.
I have no realistic way to pay this off, and I know how much it would mean to him to KNOW that I never wanted to borrow anything, and that I wasn't just taking advantage because I could get away with it. I mean, he believes it, and it's true, clearly, but to really know is different.
Plus a recent visit to the ER, with no insurance, and my teeth need serious attention.
I've been broke for too long to pass up a sure thing.
If it was $1k or $100k... then GREEN
Quite the paradox. Allais you guys get on with it then.
Green, im content enough with where i am to risk it
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Yeah indeed. I think this thread illustrates how there's a HUGE gap between $1000 and $100K, but anything above a million is basically a very large number for most of us, and we don't really care what multiple of million we have in our account.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
Also why things like the US national debt doesn't phase people, because the number is so huge it's just intangible. Do you know whether it's 16 billion or trillion? Do you care?
http://i.imgur.com/SP8GO.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
Also. Easy green button.
Damn nits.
No gamble, no future.
Green. Since both buttons will net you zero anyway.
Come on guys!Quote:
Originally Posted by Penneywize
Allais paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Re. the 'if it's 1k and 100k then definitely pick green'. That's exactly what utility of money theory predicts.
HAHA you guys thought you were being clever when your behaviour was already explained by theory! neener neener neeeeener
Risk aversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nothing wrong with independently coming to the same conclusions as Mr. Allais through rational thought now is there Penney? :P Just 'cause the concept isn't new doesn't mean it's not interesting to discuss.
NOPE NOPE we are all living predetermined lives with no possibility of individuality and thus this discussion is meaningless
/ceases to exist
red
If everyone in the world had this option, I'd chose green
If I am the only person with this option, I'd chose red
If me and my gf had this option, one would chose red and the other green
Man dude, you don't have to colour code, I'm able to read just fine! That lime green colour is super tilting.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Curious to know why you would choose green in the case that everybody else in the world was offered the same option?
INFLATIONQuote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
WHATS A MILLION DOLLARS IF EVERYONE IN THE WORLD HAS THE SAME AMOUNT OR MORE
WHY AM I YELLING??!
lol
duhhhhh
oh yeah true that. turned my brain off for a sec there, pardon me. so green button since red ensures you die in the gutters, and green means you have a 50% chance to make it out ok.
edit: coming from a guy who constantly tries to inform people about inflation (QE and so on), it was a particularly bad mindfart!
edit2: but hey i just ate an awesome meal and i'm still digesting and stuff, so yeah sadly that's my only excuse.
edit3: penney, i have this deja vu thing happening right now that you and i discussed QE or some inflationary thing on here before. is it just me?
edit4: also an excuse might be I was too pwned by the eye-rapage of the bright green text. also i'm taking advantage of the fact that I can edit all i want within a 15-minute window.
I wonder what proportion of people would take red if it was 100k and how that proportion would change if first of all it was 1mil but then they were told it was a typo and was supposed to say 100k.
Enter Penny with a name and a theory.
BIN you are the worst kind of nit.
Curious to know how many kinds of nits there are.Quote:
Originally Posted by bikes
I'd say if it were 100k instead of 1 mil i.e. press red to win 100k, press green for a 50% chance at winning 10 mil, you'd definitely get a lot more people pressing green. The reason for this is that 100k, while a certainly large amount of money, losing it for a (strong) chance at winning 10 mil isn't so bad, given that many people make that amount of money in a year or two. So 100k is not necessarily a life-changing amount, while 1 mil almost certainly is for all but the richest among us.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Don't think there's a name for that but it's all under utility of money iirc
I had a lengthy discussion / argument with wufwugy on the topic once, hell I think I've argued with wuf a fair bit over the years on random economic topics. It's possible you were involved in one of those discussions but I can't remember specifically. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
In my current situation I'd have to choose red. Too many things I need to settle to get my family back on a comfortable track.
If I was single I'd have to choose red because I'd spend the mil in less than a year cuzza coke whores and stuff.
If I had the option right this second, I would choose red.
First off, having $100 million in cash would create more problems for me than it would solve. I would feel that receiving such a large sum of money and not knowing what to do with it would lead me to develop some weird mental side effects related to entitlement and also leave myself with nothing to really work towards. It would make most of my days feel pointless and empty, despite being super rich. I don't have experience investing in things that only accredited investors can touch, so jumping right in to complex investments like hedge funds and pre-IPOS to seek ways to grow that money even more could possibly end up fucking me. People would also never leave me alone on top of it, and I may end up losing friends or making ones that I don't like or don't actually like me.
With $1 million cash, I could buy a decent place here http://www.33baystreet.com/, which is where I plan on moving to next year hopefully, and still have a nice chunk leftover to invest. I would own two properties if I bought one here because I own my current home, so leveraging the two properties to grow a real estate portfolio of rental properties to build wealth into something even bigger would be a project I'd enjoy working on and push me forward on the path of living a fulfilling life.
I have a plan to turn the $1 million into much more and I know how I'm going to go about it and would have fun doing so. I'm actually so eager to do what I plan to with $1million cash that I would forgo a higher EV gamble just to secure it. Also the pain of pressing that green button and losing would be so extreme, I don't think I could handle it, especially knowing that I would be a lot happier than I am right now with that guaranteed million given my current situation. Having $100million would certainly be fucking awesome, but there are certainly going to be drawbacks, and after giving it thought, this is what my final decision would be.
I'd say $5M and I'm hitting red
meh after another minute of thought, I'm taking $3M on red, $1M doesn't quite do it in today's world. $3M and I could easily never work another day AND my next generation would have a head start.
But that's the point, you can't change the rules to make the choice easier.1 mill is more htan enough if you do it right. But it's not a guarentee and things aren't going to be easy. If you wnat easy you have to be able to GAMBOOOL and accept possibly being busto
imma hit the red cuz 50% chance of getting murder suicided by wife would only be worth it if I didn't have a child depending on me.
red for me obviously
i'd take red and deal with any regrets i may have about that choice once the money ran out.
ha! niceQuote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
If you take the milli, your child won't be depending on u nemoarQuote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
I really enjoyed reading micro's post. Everything he said were things that went through my head.
Off topic, if you plan on buying a condo in Toronto within the next couple of years you're going to be burning a big chunk of change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micro2Macro
plan is to rent a year and re-eval. thx for heads up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galapogos
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by jyms
But I strongly disagree here. One mill should be able to net you $50k year (avg) which is more than enough to live comfortably on.Quote:
Originally Posted by jyms
I could quit my job, decide what if anything I want to do to make some side cash. I don't need a fancy car or a boat or crazy vacations so I would be fine to spend my time how I see fit. That is life changing and is worth it. With $50 mill I would just be blowing money on excess (note: excess is not a dude) and it would not make me more happy than not working a 9 to 5.
I answered the original hypothetical, it's GREEN for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jyms
also people are saying what amount the red needs to be in order to hit it
how about what % the green needs to be to hit red or if you chose red, what % the green needs to be to take it
if I have $1M I don't want to be pinching pennies, that's what I feel I would do with just $1M handed to me. I'd def. attempt to never work again, but people are probably overestimating the return you can get on your money these days.
Now for those who will continue to work, $1M is probably great. With very good investing you might be able to quadruple it in 20 years.
The U.S. median income is 45k, so you would need 4.5% return (I guess I'm not factoring in taxes here).Quote:
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
I think most people vastly overestimate how much money they need to live comfortably.
it's a child, not a cat :xQuote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
100 mil you'll be ballin' for life, 1 mil changes your life for a few years
If you're under 35 and not starving, press green ffs
THISQuote:
Originally Posted by Alexos
For me the cutoff would be 10 mil, just cuz I'm not that materialistic (my yacht doesn't have to be THAT big :P), although I'm obv kicking myself for giving up 40 mil in EV (wtf)
ya, 10 mil and it's snap red... but since it's a snap for me, then my line has to be lower than that. I'm thinking 3mil or so like someone else said.
Meh, my line us 250k in pounds, ie enough to buy a nice enough 4 bed house outright. This means outgoings are practically nothing. If you can't make a success of your life from that point you're fucked regardless.
I think if I'm forced to press the green button regardless to see what I would have won I may be more inclined to gamble.
ya, I think if you're allowed to rabbit hole the green button after pushing the red, then I'm just always pushing the green. Not really sure why though..
Red.
I have to go for green.
Easiest question in the history of the world
red
Hmm decisions
green or red
1 mill would actually change your entire life if you're not crazy. A million in the bank would provide you with peak opportunity to make the most of your life; 100 million in the bank would only add some shiny things (and a lot of noise) to that
Wuf it's painfully obvoius that this predicts navity or current wealth. If your net worth is over 500k going to 1.5 doesn't me as much.
i'm friggin' 48 and have an 8 yr old son. I may make 40K this year, pretty sure red is a no brainer here even for half the price. That said, gimme 75% chance ont he green and maybe I start thinking differently too.
Snap green.
Imma go "fuckit YOLO" and hit it.
red
wheres the poll?
a little late to the party, but I'm breaking my hand snapping green.
would hit red if it were 2M
Heh, now thats an interesting question. If it was 2M, i think i would take it too.
Certainly if it was 5M. At that point, green could be almost anything and i may still take the 5M.
1M just isnt a lot of money imo. Yeah, if you penny pinch...1M can give you 25 years of a 40k salary. But could you buy a house? Car? Afford repairs on either? Send kids through college? Send yourself through again? 1M can get these things...but you'll be spent after. So you'll reach what you want in life, but probably still have to work. And lets face it, fuck work.
2M+ though, you can get what you want and still not work. 5M and you can live really comfy with hoes and shit.
In terms of the 100M...id give up the chance to own my own private island and jet. I can deal
1M is way more than enough to buy all things that truly improve your life. This is because the idea of joy emerging out of ballin status is simply not true. The only way money brings happiness is through the security and opportunity to engage in the activities that enhance your life. The person who takes 1M and uses it wisely to follow their dreams will be much happier than the person with 100M who makes it rain and snorts blow off of hookers' asses. The former will find a fulfilling existence while the latter will spend a whole lot more time than he wanted sitting by himself on the beach browsing reddit
its quite easy, just take the green and sell off whatever % you want to a rich person for a discount and lock up whatever money you need to be set then take the freeroll for more
:clap: Excellent :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by simpledude16
Risk Management Theory at it's finest.
I keep telling him that he's locked in an empty room with a crazy lady holding a gun to his head and NO he may NOT have a phone call, but he won't listen.Quote:
Originally Posted by simpledude16
Hi, I'm Wufwugy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You mean Risk Management theory at its most basic. I mean quite literally this is the most basic application of risk management theory; one party takes on risk, earning a premium from a risk-averse agent. LDFOQuote:
Originally Posted by chemist
i expected you to say that browsing reddit alone on the beach is following your dreamsQuote:
Originally Posted by bikes
the world outside my room is bright and scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
if its so basic then why didnt you post it :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Penneywize
He said finest, not most complicated ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Penneywize
Well the way this came about initially was a study where respondents were asked to list their preferences among lotteries. The Allais paradox originates, essentially, from the following (the numbers are not correct obv, but the result is the same):Quote:
Originally Posted by simpledude16
Given choices between lottery A and B:
Lottery A
90% chance of winning 100$
10% chance of winning 0$
(expectation of 90$)
Lottery B
50% chance of winning 500$
50% chance of winning 0$
(expectation of 250$)
Respondents tended to choose lottery B. This is in line with expected utility theory, which says individuals would choose the lottery with the highest expectation.
When the lotteries were structured as follows:
Lottery A
90% chance of winning $10,000
10% chance of winning $0
(expectation of $9,000)
Lottery B
50% chance of winning $50,000
50% chance of winning $0
(expectation of $25,000)
Respondents had a much higher tendency to choose lottery A. This flew in the face of contemporary economic thinking, as Lottery A is strictly dominated in terms of expectation by Lottery B. So that's where the paradox originates. If we multiply the payoffs in the first scenario by 100, we have the same payoffs as in the second. Since this is a linear, monotonic transformation, the consumers are expected to make the exact same choices.
I may not be getting my timelines correct but I believe it was about that time (1970s or so) that theory with regards to risk aversion, certainty equivalence and other related topics began to really fill out in the econ literature. Utility of money was obviously an older idea, but the form of log-utility was more or less in the background back in those days.
Anyhow, to answer your question, the reason I didn't mention it before is because that was outside of the equation i.e. you are not given an option to look for insurance on choosing the risky lottery. Certainty equivalence, by the way, is essentially what you're referring to in your post. It is defined as the sum of money you'd need to be paid not to accept the lottery.
If you remember "Deal or No Deal", this was pretty much the crux of the show; the 'bank' would offer sums that were below the expectation of the money remaining in the cases, essentially trying to guess at the lowest possible amount they can pay the contestant in order for them not to accept the gamble.
But at the same time we weren't specifically told that we could not look for insurance, or anything else for that matter. I remember having a big argument a while back with a friend who was convinced that insurance was -EV and anyone who took it was being an idiot - I'm of the opinion that insurance can actually be +EV. If you break your leg 1% of the time and the medical costs are $100k each time and you pay $2k for insurance, obviously it's -EV. But if you getting hold of $100k to pay for the bills every 1% actually costs you $300k in interest etc then it's actually +EV for you and also +EV for the insurance company as the costs are different. IDK if I'm missing anything but access to liquid money could make insurance +EV for both parties right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Penneywize
666th post, Pascal.
Yeah, I figured that searching for insurance defeats the purpose of the question as in that case, clearly, no one would choose red, a great majority would take insurance on the second gamble for a guaranteed payoff greater than 1 mil, and a few risk lovers would choose green. There is really nothing interesting about that. Anyway, we are only presented with two buttons, and not a third saying "I need time to find insurance on this risky gamble".
As for your discussion on insurance, in terms of "EV", we are speaking clearly in terms of expectation (exactly what EV is). In a broad sense, your friend is correct. Let's leave out the potential for insurance companies to invest money for a moment - we can assume that, with a large enough number of recipients, the insurance company is simultaneously paying out and accepting payments from insurees to the point where there exists no frictions, for instance. In this case, any given insurance contract offered has to have a negative expectation for the recipient, as otherwise the insurance company would lose money on the contract and ultimately go out of business.
So broadly speaking, insurance contracts should have a negative expectation for anyone accepting them. Again let's leave out cases of moral hazard (i.e. hey, I'm insured, time to start engaging in risky behaviour -- the insurance company's got my back anyway!) and adverse selection (i.e. hey I'm super sickly and have shitty health, but I can lie to the insurance company and pay a lower premium than I should given the risks they are taking on).
In practice, insurance companies will lose money on some contracts, but make money on aggregate. People accept insurance contracts for the same reason they buy locks for their front doors: peace of mind. There is an innate value in this, and this is, essentially, what insurance companies are selling.
In more exact technical terms, insurance companies take on risk in return for a premium. Individuals are risk averse agents, and are willing to pay a premium to lessen the risk they are exposed to (in this case, risk due to tje uncertain prospects of health and injury).
Given the scenario you described, I can't agree that an insurance company would offer a contract to an individual with a positive expectation. If the individual has a given chance to break their leg, it's the insurance company's job to evaluate this probability and demand a premium that sufficiently compensates them for taking on the "risk" of having to pay you a large sum in the event you do break your leg.
Now, if we add in the ability to invest and so on, this situation is not likely to change by much. The options for investing money aren't necessarily risk-free either, though you can come up with ways to build an essentially non-risky portfolio that I won't get into here.
I'd imagine that the best you can expect is if there were 'perfect competition' in the insurance market -- something that does not really exist in practice -- the best you could hope for is a neutral EV situation for both parties.
This results, theoretically, from insurance companies continually entering the market so long as a profit can be made; they compete with each other based on their pricing of contracts. Once the marginal firm entering the market prices the contract at cost i.e. for zero expected profits, no further firms enter, all firms in the market make no profits, and contracts are at the lowest possible price for consumers.
if someone is holding a gun to my head why would i trust them to flip the coin properly that gives me a 50% chance and not rig it, then obv i should take the million cash cause there is no chance i am being cheatedQuote:
Originally Posted by donkbee
As long as we're going on hypothetical tangents, what if this is really a cosmic test from inter-dimensional visitors designed to test the greed and naivety of the human population, and they will show you the meaning of existence and turn you into a neo-like figure on earth if you refuse to press either button?
I for one can't take that chance so I'm going to abstain from pressing any button.
lol
Think you might have missed what I was saying - I'll try and break it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Penneywize
Person buys insurance from insurance company for $1,000
Risk of accident per holiday assessed at 1%, average cost of accident (as in hospital bills, new travel plans, medicine, etc) = $50k
Therefore, insurance company is making a $1,000 profit in the long run
If person doesn't take insurance, average cost = $500 a holiday
However, what if person doesn't have access to $50k unlike the insurance company which has plenty of money in reserve? $50k of bills would need say $40k borrowed at a high interest rate, possible remortgage, etc) - total cost of borrowing $50k to the person could be say $150k
Real average cost for person = $1.5k per holiday
Therefore insurance is +EV for insurance company and +EV for the person because the insurance company has easy access to pay the money for hospital bills whereas getting that amount of money would cost the person lots in interest etc
Ah, I see what you're driving at. Well, the question to ask would be this: do insurance companies offer the service of liquidity (implicitly) free of charge?
I would say no. Whatever costs are associated with the insurance company having to carry a certain balance readily available for payout to insurees have to be capitulated elsewhere; consider that having this liquid money balance carries a non-trivial opportunity cost, versus say being invested in bonds or on the stock market.
I would assume this cost is factored into the price of contracts. It simply doesn't make economic sense to do otherwise; if insurance companies simply provide this service out of the kindness of their heart, they are implicitly losing money due to opportunity cost and inflation. So while the consumer would benefit, the insurance company would lose money, and this is clearly not a +EV situation for both parties. Further, as I alluded to in my last post, if insurance companies lost money on contract, they would go out of business.
It's just not really possible for a "+EV" situation to come up for two parties in which they unequivocally mutually benefit. You can analyze things from insurance contracts to credit default swaps and so on, and you'll find that these instruments exist for the purposes of hedging against risk. One party is always taking on risk, and the other party is always paying a premium for it.
re-reading your post, I'd have to think that the total costs of borrowing for a given individual would have to be irrationally high for them to be in a positive expectation position when taking on a contract. While it could happen, it doesn't make sense from a theory perspective, and it certainly wouldn't apply to a great number of individuals.
Strictly speaking, if there existed perfect information, insurance companies would take into account the costs of the individual's potential borrowing and use that to price their contracts. That is, to say, if borrowing costs are excessively high, it'd be irrational for an insurance company not to consider this as part of their opportunity cost of lending out their liquid money. Without market frictions, we would see that the opportunity cost of holding liquid assets would then be exactly the cost of borrowing (i.e. the real interest rate) faced by consumers.
OK I'm pressing the RED button now and hoping it will detonate this thread.
how did we get on to insurance companies.
The idea of which should be simply to spread risk across a group of people.
But because many insurances are mandated the greedy bastards consolidate the industry massively over charge and steal huge executive bonuses from the insured funds.
The Finest usually is the most Basic.
The greater the complexity the less elegant the result.
Pure 90% Chocolate is the Finest.
10% Chocolate +10% Flavourings + 50% Fat + 30% chemicals is fairly cheap rubbish.
LOL, the fuck are you on about. Pascal asked me a Q, I answered. But nice to see you're quite able to abstract from reality and have a discussion on theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist
Oya every insurance company is greedy and corrupt omgwtfbbq
Also it seems imprudent to me that some cliche sentence like 'The Finest usually is the most Basic' be applied to whatever situation you please so long as it suits your purposes. For the record, I never argued the two couldn't be one and the same. But it's like saying 1+1 = 2 is the finest application of mathematics, and someone who hasn't studied finance / econ / risk management is hardly in a position to make that call.
I don't normally get bitchy like this but your post tilted the shit out of me.
ha, chill winston
Nevar! :lynch:Quote:
Originally Posted by rpm
Penny, have you been chewing the coca leaves?