I broadly agree with what you said about gambling, but if you take that type of reasoning too far it can lead to some dubious conclusions. If I'm free to add f

I broadly agree with what you said about gambling, but if you take that type of reasoning too far it can lead to some dubious conclusions. If I'm free to add fudge factors to a utility function in order to explain an agent's behaviour, the assertion that the agent is rational (i.e. maximises utility) becomes meaningless. I can always add more fudge factors to explain deviation from rationality. Much better to specify a utility function in advance and test how well the agent's behaviour fits your theory. IMO that's a trick economics often misses.