4 ms·
If the goal is to avoid bankruptcy, then the probability needs to be interpreted differently. If you bet the house every time, you're guaranteed to go bankrupt
by syrrim 7y ago
If the goal is to avoid bankruptcy, then the probability needs to be interpreted differently. If you bet the house every time, you're guaranteed to go bankrupt eventually. Suppose instead you bet half your money on an event of 50% probability. If you take 1:1 odds on this, then when you lose, your money is divided by 2, but when you win it is only multiplied by 1.5. Your money will tend to decrease over time. You need to pick odds 1:a such that 1+a/2=2 => a=2.
We recover our regular betting odds by betting a smaller portion of our money. If we bet a portion 1/d of our money on an event of probability 1/p, we needs odds 1:a such that 1+a/d=(d/(d-1))^(p-1). For large enough d we get a=p-1, as we would expect.
Assume again you're betting half your money each round, but take a probability of winning of 84%, as in the article. You should take that bet at 1:1.14 odds, much less than the recommended 1:5 odds.
- ravar 7y agoFor the curious, look up the kelly criterion, it formalizes this thinking.
- ikeboy 7y agoThis has nothing to do with interpreting probability, but with a utility function that's not linear in terms of wealth. With decreasing marginal returns to wealth, the same bet becomes less attractive at lower wealth levels. Although this can't fully explain risk aversion, see https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.15.1.219 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.15.1.219