Matt Levine updated the above: First, in the original version of yesterday’s column, I transposed the names in my first description of the bet, writing “If a

Matt Levine updated the above: First, in the original version of yesterday’s column, I transposed the names in my first description of the bet, writing “If any intern loses more than $65 that day, Bankman-Fried will pay Asher that intern’s losses above $65; if none do, Asher will pay Bankman-Fried the difference between $65 and the maximum loss,” where I meant “If any intern loses more than $65 that day, Asher will pay Bankman-Fried that intern’s losses above $65; if none do, Bankman-Fried will pay Asher the difference between $65 and the maximum loss.” This is now corrected on the web and the Bloomberg Terminal, but if you read Money Stuff by email you got the wrong description of the bet, and that is annoying and I’m sorry. Second, a reader tweeted a better trade: “SBF also either missed or passed on a one-sided bet with greater +EV that would have inflicted greater loss on the counterparty on the first flip: pay two other interns $1 each to coin flip each other for $100.” Yes. This trade would cost Asher $35 (one intern loses $100 on the coin flip, $35 more than the $65 strike price on Bankman-Fried’s bet with Asher[3] ) and would make Bankman-Fried $33 ($35 from Asher minus the $2 he pays the interns). Crucially, Bankman-Fried’s actual trade — pay an intern $1 to flip a coin with him for $98 — had a slightly lower $32 expected value, and was risky; he had a 50/50 chance of winning $130 or losing $66. This trade — pay two interns to flip each other — has a guaranteed profit of $33 with no risk at all. Bankman-Fried went with the riskier trade.