Imagine that the case is pretty good, but not airtight--let's say there's 2:1 odds, or a 75% chance, that you recover your money. The expected value of the law

Imagine that the case is pretty good, but not airtight--let's say there's 2:1 odds, or a 75% chance, that you recover your money. The expected value of the lawsuit is therefore (0.751500) + (0.25-5000) = -$125, which means that very few people will go after the crooked landlord. If the leasing company has deep pockets, they could slant the outcome even further in their favor. Spend $10,000 instead and the expected value is now -$1,375. This seems wrong. On top of this, you also have to worry about the risk of ruin. Imagine a bet where Bill Gates pays you $15M if a coin comes up heads, but you pay him $10M if it comes up tails. This bet has a positive expected value (+$5M), but most people won't take it because the losing outcome is completely devastating (unless someone rich is backing you). I wonder if anywhere has a rule where the winning side receives min(loser's cost, winner's cost). That seems like it might be reasonably fair (if you can keep both sides from cooking the books).