You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Vaniver comments on Iterated Gambles and Expected Utility Theory - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: Sable 25 May 2016 09:29PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (43)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: GuySrinivasan 25 May 2016 10:10:35PM *  0 points [-]

tl;dr: If you have less than ~$13k saved and have only enough income to meet expenses, picking B might legitimately make you sad even if it's correct.


I'd take B every time. But it depends on your financial situation. If the stakes are small relative to my reference wealth I maximize expected dollars, no regrets, and if you can't without regrets then maybe try playing poker for a while until you can be happy with good decisions that result in bad outcomes because of randomness. You may not make that exact decision again, but you make decisions like it plenty often.

If the stakes are large relative to my reference wealth then the situation changes for two reasons. One, I probably won't have the opportunity to take bets with stakes large relative to my wealth very often. Two, change in utility is no longer approximately proportional to change in dollars. Perhaps $240 is a non-trivial amount to you? For a hypothetical person living in an average American city with $50k saved and an annual income of $50k, an additional $240 is in no way life changing, so dU(+$240) ~= 0.24 * dU(+$1000) and they should pick B. But with 1000x the stakes, it's entirely possible that dU(+$240,000) >> 0.25 * dU(+$1,000,000).

Another way of looking at this is investing with Kelly Criterion (spherical cow but still useful), which says if you start with $50k and no other annual income and have the opportunity to periodically pay $24x for a 25% chance at $100x, you should start by betting ~$657 a pop for maximum growth rate, which is within shouting distance of the proposed $240 - and KC is well known to be too risky for individuals without massive wealth, as people actually have to spend money during low periods. This is proportional to wealth, so the breakeven wealth before you're sad that you have to bet so much at once ($240) is, under the too-risky KC, about $18k, which means actually it's probably like $10k-$15k.

I have very little intuition how this translates if, for example, you have heaps of student load debt and are still trying to finish education in hopes of obtaining a promised-but-who-knows well paying job in a few years.

Comment author: Vaniver 26 May 2016 01:30:04PM *  0 points [-]

If you have a log utility function (which the KC maximizes), you can calculate the breakeven starting wealth with this formula.