Correct. I find this argument better explains the Nick Baring irrationality than the "Cognitive Overload" theory as detailed in the article or the "reference p

Correct. I find this argument better explains the Nick Baring irrationality than the "Cognitive Overload" theory as detailed in the article or the "reference point" theory also mentioned. Nick framed the problem as losing/not losing his job. He didn't think in terms of a multi equation, multi variable math problem. From what I know of gamblers who lost their life savings in Vegas. They said something similar. They lost a small nominal amount. Their losses increased when they tried to recoup their losses by taking riskier losing bets. That is they framed the problem as loss/not loss. That is people will literally risk everything they have to prevent a small loss.