Are you risk loving or risk adverse?

To you, what value of $X will make these 2 payoffs equivalent:

Payoff 1 - Getting $100 for certain.

Payoff 2 - Getting $0 with 50% probability, and $X with 50% probability.


To you, what value of $Y will make these 2 payoffs equivalent:

Payoff 3 - Getting -$100 for certain.

Payoff 4 - Getting -$0 with 50% probability, and -$Y with 50% probability.


If XY X \neq Y , is there an arbitrage opportunity?

Note by Calvin Lin
4 years, 3 months ago

No vote yet
1 vote

</code>...<code></code> ... <code>.">   Easy Math Editor

MarkdownAppears as
*italics* or _italics_ italics
**bold** or __bold__ bold

- bulleted
- list

  • bulleted
  • list

1. numbered
2. list

  1. numbered
  2. list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
paragraph 1

paragraph 2

paragraph 1

paragraph 2

[example link](https://brilliant.org)example link
> This is a quote
This is a quote
    # I indented these lines
    # 4 spaces, and now they show
    # up as a code block.

    print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
MathAppears as
Remember to wrap math in </span>...<span></span> ... <span> or </span>...<span></span> ... <span> to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3 2×3 2 \times 3
2^{34} 234 2^{34}
a_{i-1} ai1 a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3} 23 \frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2} 2 \sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3 i=13 \sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta sinθ \sin \theta
\boxed{123} 123 \boxed{123}

Comments

Sort by:

Top Newest

Depends on what my initial balance is.

If I begin the game with $0 in hand, I will definitely choose Payoff 1 and Payoff 4, no matter what X and Y are. (Getting guaranteed money, no matter how small, is infinitely better if you don't have any to begin with; likewise, having possibility of no need to owe anything is infinitely better even if that choice also risks the possibility of owing a massive amount, when you have nothing to begin with.)

If I begin the game with a big amount ($1 million) in hand, I'm pretty sure the cutoff point (Payoff 1 if lower, Payoff 2 if higher) for X is somewhere around 200+ϵ200+\epsilon, and likewise for Y around 200ϵ200-\epsilon (Payoff 4 if lower, Payoff 3 if higher). I'm someone that believes the utility of money can be modeled logarithmically.

Ivan Koswara - 4 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

So, you will choose payoff 1 even if X = 1000000?

And you will choose to lose $1000, instead of guaranteeing just a loss of $100?

Note that you can go negative into debt, which gets paid off in a subsequent time period. If Y was huge enough that you would declare bankruptcy with no adverse effect, then yes sometimes Payoff 4 could be better.

Calvin Lin Staff - 4 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

I said it depends (heavily) on my initial balance. If I have $0 to begin with, yes, I will choose Payoff 1 even if X = $1000000; but give me about $10 to begin, and I might pick Payoff 2 instead (since I at least have backup money of $10 if I don't get the million). Likewise for the second scenario; if you have $0 to begin with, any debt at all will cause bankruptcy and thus it's better to pick Payoff 4 that has a possibility of no bankruptcy.

Using (my sense of) utility of money, where the utility of $X\$X is U(X)=AlogBXU(X) = A \cdot \log BX for some constants A,BA,B:

If I start with $0:

  • Payoff 1 makes my money $100, so U(Payoff 1)=U(100)=Alog100BU(\text{Payoff 1}) = U(100) = A \cdot \log 100B, which is finite.
  • Payoff 2 has two possibilities. 50% of the time, my money becomes $X, so U(X)=AlogXBU(X) = A \cdot \log XB, which is finite. However, 50% of the time, my money remains $0, so U(0)=Alog0=U(0) = A \cdot \log 0 = -\infty. Thus U(Payoff 2)=12U(X)+12U(0)=U(\text{Payoff 2}) = \frac{1}{2} \cdot U(X) + \frac{1}{2} \cdot U(0) = -\infty. No finite value of X can make this not infinity, and when X goes to infinity, things get weird with \infty - \infty.

However, give any positive amount $ϵ\$\epsilon to start with, and now U(Payoff 2)=U(X+ϵ)+U(ϵ)U(\text{Payoff 2}) = U(X+\epsilon) + U(\epsilon) is finite, and so for some XX it's possible that U(Payoff 2)>U(Payoff 1)U(\text{Payoff 2}) > U(\text{Payoff 1}), in which I'm taking Payoff 2 instead.

Ivan Koswara - 4 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@Ivan Koswara Ah i see. I missed that your "absolute zero point" is $0,

I think that people can go into debt and so my "absolute zero point" isn't $0, but more like -$100,000 (depending on age / locality / etc)

E.g. It is arguably worthwhile for some people to take on student loan debt so that they can study in a (overseas) university.

Calvin Lin Staff - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

How can you ever win anything with payoff 4? If you lose money or get nothing :s

Hussein Hijazi - 4 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

That's the point: If you must choose between payoff 3 or payoff 4, which would you choose (to cut your losses)? Payoff 3 guarantees that you lose $100 while payoff 4 results in only a probability of 50% to lose $200.

Pi Han Goh - 4 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Is this a serious mathematical question or a question about how bad you feel about losing?

I'd take on Payoff 2 if X>200 (preferably X>>>200). And I'd take on payoff 4 if Y\leq100 ( preferably Y<<<0) ;-)

I guess it shows that I don't like to owe anybody. Lannisters always repay their debts. So do I.

vishnu c - 4 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Never seen a lannister except for the Imp to pay his debts and you're not a lannister either are you? xD

Arian Tashakkor - 4 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

That's why I added the "So do I" part.

vishnu c - 4 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...