This is a (hypothetical) question for those of you who are usually not into gambling. Let’s say somebody made the following proposition: There will be a coin toss. Your stake is $100. If head comes up, you lose your $100. If tail comes up, you win one million dollars.
Well, I’m morally opposed to all gambling so I would not take the bet.
But if I wasn’t I would still be leery. There would have to be a catch (two headed coin, payoff is in Zimbabwe dollars, other party simply laughs and walks away if tails comes up).
Unless I understood what the rationale was for this, I would assume I’d just lose $100.
I’m not a gambler, but I’d take this deal in a heartbeat (assuming I know it’s a fair coin). Not liking to gamble when odds are pretty reasonably distributed, does not mean you’re not willing to take a great “deal” when offered one.
I’d take the bet even if it cost me $5000. That’s still a 200:1 payout with 50/50 odds. And I NEVER gamble. I won’t even put a quarter in a slot machine.
Assuming that the game is known to be fair and the banker’s credit is good, you’d be a fool to pass this up. Absent those data, though, this promises to be one of those earful-of-cider propositions.
Correct. If it’s just some guy, even if the coin is fair, you would have to be an idiot to think he’ll pay off. If it’s Warren Buffet, or a Vegas casino doing this in public, then sure, I’d be all over it.
“One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you’re going to wind up with an ear full of cider.”
My favorite example of a winning bet that confounds people is the St. Petersburg paradox. It has infinite expected payout, but most people wouldn’t play for any substantial bet.