= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bgrah449 comments on Money pumping: the axiomatic approach - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (93)
Please forgive the nitpicking but as an actuary, I do try to make this point whenever I feel it's helpful to do so:
Insurance is not betting. Insurance is removing variation and chance from your life, not introducing variation and chance to your life. A bet introduces risk where there was none before. Insurance removes risk when it already exists.
End of nitpicking.
That's exactly the same as hedging bets.
Which is why hedging is understood by people who hedge as insurance (unlike the bet they are trying to hedge).
A good point to remember, and I'd say the most useful way to think of it.
The problematic word seems to be "bet," and while I agree that most bets do increase variation, I feel like Chris/Stuart take bet to mean "an amount of money that pays returns when one outcome happens and not when another does." This adequately captures both traditional bets (bets that some thing will happen because one believes the probability of it happening is higher than one's betting partner believes it is) and insurance or hedging bets.
Agreed.
I work on prediction markets, so I see it all as bets, and am used to thinking that both participants in a purely financial trade can gain from it, even though many people on the outside of the deal see it as zero sum. Sometimes you increase your variance because you think it's worth increasing your expected return, other times you reduce your variation.