Life In 19x19

logan wrote:I would not take the bet (for any X$), and I am stronger than 10k.

Really? You wouldn't pay $100 for a 50% chance to win a million?

daniel_the_smith wrote:

logan wrote:I would not take the bet (for any X$), and I am stronger than 10k.

Really? You wouldn't pay $100 for a 50% chance to win a million?

maybe if someone makes this offer to you the probability that its a scam is extremly close to 1 ?

lets make an experiment:

Send me 100$, i'll flip a coin and if it land on tail i'll sell my house and give the money to you. Otherwise i keep the 100$.

any takers ? i'll send you my paypal details

remind me of the quote "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"

perceval wrote:

daniel_the_smith wrote:

logan wrote:I would not take the bet (for any X$), and I am stronger than 10k.

Really? You wouldn't pay $100 for a 50% chance to win a million?

maybe if someone makes this offer to you the probability that its a scam is extremly close to 1 ?

lets make an experiment:

Send me 100$, i'll flip a coin and if it land on tail i'll sell my house and give the money to you. Otherwise i keep the 100$.

any takers ? i'll send you my paypal details

remind me of the quote "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"

If I could get this in writing, I'll take you up on it.

daniel_the_smith wrote:

logan wrote:I would not take the bet (for any X$), and I am stronger than 10k.

Really? You wouldn't pay $100 for a 50% chance to win a million?

is that what the bet is? I voted wrong.

xed_over wrote:

daniel_the_smith wrote:

logan wrote:I would not take the bet (for any X$), and I am stronger than 10k.

Really? You wouldn't pay $100 for a 50% chance to win a million?

is that what the bet is? I voted wrong.

I was disputing logan's claim that no amount of money would tempt him to take the bet

daniel_the_smith wrote:I was disputing logan's claim that no amount of money would tempt him to take the bet

There is no way to dispute that (IMHO). Maybe he belongs to a religion that forbids betting.

cyclops wrote:

daniel_the_smith wrote:I was disputing logan's claim that no amount of money would tempt him to take the bet

There is no way to dispute that (IMHO). Maybe he belongs to a religion that forbids betting.

Actually that's the only reason I could think of for turning down such a bet... Unless you think it's a scam, of course...

daniel_the_smith wrote:

logan wrote:I would not take the bet (for any X$), and I am stronger than 10k.

Really? You wouldn't pay $100 for a 50% chance to win a million?

Correct, for any X$.

logan wrote:

daniel_the_smith wrote:

logan wrote:I would not take the bet (for any X$), and I am stronger than 10k.

Really? You wouldn't pay $100 for a 50% chance to win a million?

Correct, for any X$.

Assuming there's an aversion to gambling here, suppose we rephrase.

Mathematically defined, a "bet" is something different from what it is in Las Vegas. A bet is merely a choice based on probabilities.

I could have rephrased the bet like this:

Suppose there's a part-time position some distance away from you, it costs $100 to get there, there is a 50% chance you will not get the job. How much would the job have to pay for you to make the trip?

shapenaji wrote:Suppose there's a part-time position some distance away from you, it costs $100 to get there, there is a 50% chance you will not get the job. How much would the job have to pay for you to make the trip?

This relates to an argument many people make for why real poker (i.e. not poker variants played against the "house") isn't gambling--that the game involves a sufficient degree of skill* such that it isn't gambling, but rather a game of skill. I don't want to open up a can of worms by mentioning that argument, but it can account for why some people wouldn't pay money on a coin flip even with 100:1 favorable odds, while the same person takes personal risks every day with worse odds. In other words, a job interview involves some degree of chance (or "luck"), but also involves one's skills/qualifications, etc.

*Again, I don't want to this thread to derail on a discussion of whether poker is "gambling." But just to clarify the argument (and hopefully forestall derailment): the argument is that whether an activity is "gambling" depends, at least in part, on the extent to which skill and chance affect the outcome. Both skill and chance affect the outcome of many (most?) activities, including poker. The argument is a matter of degree. How to quantify at what point something is "gambling" would take a lot of words, and is probably beyond this thread's scope, so I'll just leave it at that.

shapenaji wrote:
Assuming there's an aversion to gambling here, suppose we rephrase.

Mathematically defined, a "bet" is something different from what it is in Las Vegas. A bet is merely a choice based on probabilities.

I could have rephrased the bet like this:

Suppose there's a part-time position some distance away from you, it costs $100 to get there, there is a 50% chance you will not get the job. How much would the job have to pay for you to make the trip?

If it's on their dime, everything I spend on the trip plus a little extra (for time). In this case, I'd require more than the normal $100 back since my time was involved.

Suji wrote:
If it's on their dime, everything I spend on the trip plus a little extra (for time). In this case, I'd require more than the normal $100 back since my time was involved.

Well, the point of it was, they're not covering anything. It's for an interview, you'd like the job, how much would the job have to pay for you to consider traveling there for it.

It's $100 in traveling expenses for a 50% shot at a job that pays X