Most theories of the saying’s origin say that the bird in the hand is a trained hunting falcon, while the two in the bush are either wild falcons (that one would presumably want to capture and train), or prey birds (that one would presumably want to hunt). Another explanation is that all three birds refer to prey, one already caught and killed versus two at large, which makes more logical sense. I’m not really interested in which explanation is the correct one, though.
Let’s assume we’re talking about the tame falcon in the hand versus two wild falcons in the bush. If we add up the likelihood that one or both falcons will escape when you try to capture them, plus the time and effort that will be needed to be put into training any that you do capture, feeding them while they’re still unable to hunt, outfitting them with little hoods, etc., it seems like the bird in the hand is worth at least several dozen in the bush.
So what’s the correct exchange rate? How many birds in the bush is a bird on the hand really worth?
I am not sure what the exchange rate is but I always thought the meaning of the saying is obvious. All the birds being referred to are game birds. The one you have in your hand is one that you have already bagged. You shouldn’t put that win in jeopardy to pursue an imagined larger gain because you may end up with nothing when you could have had enough to begin with guaranteed already. This saying has real-life applications in many different areas from gambling to dating strategies.
You could use statistics (expectancies in particular) to figure out what the exchange rate should be for a given situation but it depends on the situation and how risk tolerant you are for it.
Yes, that’s the only reasonable explanation for the saying (although the falcon ones seem to be the more commonly repeated), but I really want to know if Cecil has what it takes to figure out how much uncaptured and untrained falcon is worth, versus a trained one. What’s the chance of catching a wild falcon, once you’ve spotted one? How many medieval ducats per hour will you have to pay your falcon trainer, how much will his food cost, how much will those little leather hood thingies cost? How long until your net profit from catching and training falcons will add up to the value of a single trained bird?
I’ve never once heard that the phrase has anything to do with birds of prey, trained or otherwise. As **Shagnasty **pointed out, it’s about the certainty of what you possess vs. the potential of what you might obtain.
If you want to get a specific “exchange rate” it’s going to be different for each person, location, bird species, etc. Even specifying Medieval doesn’t really narrow it down except to a few hundred years and dozens of different political jurisdictions.
Maybe some falconers here can give you answers about the exchange rate from their experience. It would be an interesting read as far as falconry goes, but wouldn’t really tell us anything useful regarding the original saying.
In other words, it’s the position of someone who is risk-averse.
As the Wikipedia page suggests, advocates of “a bird in the hand” would prefer to put their money in a savings account instead of the stock market. Not always a sound strategy. Example, when building your nest egg for retirement, piling your money in a savings account or in bonds will leave you eating ramen noodles for the final fifteen years of your life, whereas smart stock/mutual-fund investments are virtually guaranteed to do much better than that in the long run.
IOW, a bird in the hand is not always worth two in the bush.
