|
The way I see it, the only objectively reckless gambles are ones that involve no dealing an AMO.
If the offer is below the mean, then it depends entirely on what the player's utility curve is like. If Craig felt that 20k would be at least twice as useful to him as 8k, then the no deal was fair enough. For most of us, 20k wouldn't have twice as much utility, so 8k would be a deal.
Imagine a scenario where you're left with a low blue vs 10k, and you're offered 2.5k. For most people, 2.5k is a nice chunk of money - enough for a holiday and some other things - but is unlikely to drastically change their life, whereas 10k is much more meaningful, in many cases having more than twice as much utility as 2.5k, and therefore would be a no deal. However, if someone has, say, 2k of credit card debt which they would otherwise be paying back years later, that 2.5k is going to be much more meaningful to them in particular, and with a 50% chance of winning peanuts the best choice for them is to deal.
People often see Corinne's gamble as being stupid and reckless, but in reality it wasn't in her case. She didn't really want any money unless it was enough to buy the classic Bentley she wanted - something that only the top prize would do for her. So for her, the decision was a case of having either a 50% chance of her dream, or 0%. But Corinne was a special case - for the vast majority of people, 88k would have been a clear-cut deal.
Basically, I don't think we really have the right to say whether his decision was 'reckless' or not without knowing his circumstances properly.
|
FAQ
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 8:54 am Author: hogwild94 Post subject: Craig's final gamble
