5 ms·

If "repeating the game ... changes the utility equation" from negative to positive, how can you possibly say "it has nothing to do with how many times you get t

• philh 18y ago
  It's be a mistake to say it has nothing to do with that, but the number of times you get to play is subsumed into the utility equation. It would be irrelevant if utility was linear. The point is that $10,000 to me is worth more than 1% of the value to me of $1,000,000. Whereas I would probably pay $1.10 for a 1% chance of winning $100, though not on a regular basis.
• briancooley 18y ago
  "negative to positive" - those are your words. If utility dictates that I should not risk $10,000 on a 99% chance of losing it all, it is unlikely that I have the bankroll to play the game as many times as would be required to overcome my risk of losing everything. And by playing multiple times, I have introduced a scenario with significant probability of losing much more than $10,000, which is obviously catastrophic if losing $10,000 means so much to me. The utility is certainly different, but I wouldn't necessarily claim it is better. It could in fact be worse, but I haven't studied it enough to assert either.