HomeEducationRelated VideosMore From: Wendover Productions

The Magic Economics of Gambling

31909 ratings | 1344973 views
Build your website for 10% off at http://Squarespace.com/Wendover Subscribe to Half as Interesting (The other channel from Wendover Productions): https://www.youtube.com/halfasinteresting Get the Wendover Productions t-shirt: https://standard.tv/collections/wendover-productions/products/wendover-productions-shirt Check out my personal channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDA1X6RrhzZQOHOGvC3KsWg Support Wendover Productions on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/wendoverproductions Youtube: http://www.YouTube.com/WendoverProductions Twitter: http://www.Twitter.com/WendoverPro Email: sam@wendover.productions Reddit: http://Reddit.com/r/WendoverProductions References: [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/253416/global-gambling-market-gross-win/ [2] http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDF/NYSE_MET_2017.pdf [3] https://twitter.com/wendoverpro/status/1054533498722111488 [4] https://www.nber.org/papers/w18237.pdf [5] https://twitter.com/wendoverpro/status/1054533837328281600 [6] https://twitter.com/wendoverpro/status/1054534236642795522 [7] http://www.its.caltech.edu/~snowberg/papers/Snowberg-Wolfers%20Risk%20Love%20or%20Decision%20Weights-NBER.pdf [8] http://www.football-data.co.uk/blog/favourite_longshot_bias_tennis.php [9] https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/the-bp-spill-and-the-favorite-longshot-bias/ [10] https://ac-els-cdn-com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/S0167268114002194/1-s2.0-S0167268114002194-main.pdf?_tid=6aac86b2-7e4a-46d0-bf4d-5ab70e8db750&acdnat=1540355242_b9bcf6d0549207112968a3467b39a9a0 [11] https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/08-061_17c22e32-fe06-4b4a-8b5e-e09227fc8104.pdf [12] https://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/ladder/120511prizelinkedsavingsFAQs.pdf Animation by Josh Sherrington Sound by Graham Haerther (http://www.Haerther.net) Thumbnail by Simon Buckmaster Special thanks to Patreon supporters Alec Watson, Andrew J Thom, Braam Snyman, Bryan Yip, Chris Allen, Chris Barker, Connor J Smith, Daddy Donald, Etienne Dechamps, Eyal Matsliah, Hank Green, Harry Hendel, James Hughes, James McIntosh, John & Becki, Johnston, Keith Bopp, Kelly J Knight, Ken Lee, KyQuan, Phong, manoj kasyap govindaraju, Plinio Correa, Qui Le, Robin Pulkkinen, Sheldon Zhao, Simen Nerleir, Tim Robinson Music by http://epidemicsound.com Select footage courtesy the AP Archive
Category: Education
Get embed code!
Text Comments (2350)
(23 minutes ago)
The point that the fear of loss is stronger than the promise of gain, is also the reason why religions work.
Petar Dambovaliev (15 hours ago)
The point is that people who play will never achieve average results. You need enough examples to average out stuff. One single person will never play so much to have enough to average out. On the casino's side it's averaged out because it's many to one relationship.
turbiNe (1 day ago)
I think it's kind of the same thing with the chance of crashing in a airplane and the low Chance of winning it big at the casino. There's still a chance of it happening.
Pety (5 days ago)
I like your channel so I'm a little surprised that you made a video I have so many issues with 0:18 - no they do not make that exact deal. They would be if something you assumed a bit later was actually true: that they had an infinite number of trials, but since that's not true your statement is illogical. On average over trillions of attempts by millions of people, people lose 5 cents on the dollar, but individuals only take a ridiculously small fraction of those attempts. The smaller the sample size the higher the variation, so people are actually betting that the variation will be in their favor. 1:22 - the reason people still do it is, besides the reason I mentioned earlier, because it's fun. It's entertainment, and the 5 cents on the dollar people lose on average is essentially the cost of admission for this grown-up amusement park 1:36 - insurance shouldn't work. At least in the form that it does. It "works" how it does in the US because not having insurance is literally a criminal offense 2:25 - even ignoring the first thing I said, people who want insurance don't want it to make money. They want it to prevent too much loss at any one point in time. With insurance there's only so much you're liable for until the insurance company has to pay for everything, so if you royally screw up and t bone some guy's million dollar Lamborghini, you don't have to come up with a million dollars all of a sudden and go bankrupt. Even ignoring that, people use insurance for the same reason people buy cars on payment plans despite it literally costing more money: it amortizes the cost. If something unrelated and drastic happened that cost you a lot of money, and now you lost a bunch more money to pay for some accident not covered by insurance, you could get hit with too much at a single point in time and go bankrupt as well. 2:42 - again, the two things are not the same, but not because of the negative effects of losing or whatever, but because there is not an infinite number of trials but instead only one. You even said at 3:13 your theory relies on an infinite number of trials, which isn't the case in the real world. How could you miss something so obvious 7:29 - terrible explanation. The real reason is because the amount of reporting the media does on, say, terrorism, is astronomically high in proportion to the number of people who actually die of it. With plane crashes it's the same deal, but made even worse by the fact that you're trusting your life with an extremely complex machine when you have no clue how it works 9:23 - this is a bit, well, petty, but this is also not true. You're losing money here due to inflation
Clark Fererra (5 days ago)
Gambling itself is a kind of magic!
Rand Barrett (5 days ago)
This seems to prove that people are not rational, at all
brian marshall (6 days ago)
this video states odds of 200/1 gives you 300 back for every dollar bet. but its actually only 201. i wouldnt want to be the videos author if im paying out 50% above the odds.
Andrew Kaplan (7 days ago)
5 dollars is equally to a 5 percent chance of 100 only if the bet is done multiple times. The whole point is it's a one time thing
Allan Peda (10 days ago)
I rarely downvote, but this simplification of insurance is nonsense. If my losses could destroy me, removing my ability to meet the opportunity costs for recovering, but the premiums are manageable, then the insurance is worthwhile. Only the wealthiest entities (such as New York City) can self insure.
sportsMike87 (11 days ago)
Will aviation be wrapped in this video somehow
bhaskar varma (12 days ago)
Good going
Lewis Johnson (12 days ago)
Money market funds and mutual funds are where it’s at. Don’t fool with savings accounts
Corey Liddil (13 days ago)
"Finally a video without planes!" *7:30* "Oh, God dammit!"
The Mastar (14 days ago)
Let's not forget that the odds for winning the lottery jackpot is around 1 in 45 million, and if you buy 2 tickets, the odds become around 1 in 22.5 million, for a small price. so people are more likely to buy 2 tickets.
Daniel V (11 days ago)
You've got it wrong. First, for the Powerball and Mega Millions, odds are more like 1 in 200 million. And you dont get 1 in 100 million odds if you get 2 tickets. Otherwise everyone would buy a handful of tickets. One ticket gives you one set of numbers that win. And (ballpark figure) 199,999,999 sets that dont win. To begin, just BEGIN, to improve your odds by buying tickets en masse, you'd need to buy hundreds and hundreds of separate sets of numbers.
NoobPilot831 (14 days ago)
Expanding everything to infinity is not reality, so why talk with in terms of it.
Leo Barlach (14 days ago)
I don't think the $5 example works. There's value to reducing risk. It is completely rational to prefer the lower risk, all else equal. The more risk, the bigger the required payoff.
Daniel V (11 days ago)
An argument can be made that it is irrational to be dead set on the certain $5 as opposed to the slightly smaller chance at a slightly larger amount. They have the same monetary value.
lonelyPorterCH (14 days ago)
I was in a casino once, just for fun I won about 150 CHF^^ But this was the first and only time, I went to a casino^^
Florac (14 days ago)
Lottery money goes to education? Then how will they make sure people say stupid enough to play it?
Fliyo MB (15 days ago)
Sounds like what EA, Activision, and Rockstar/Take2 been doing for the last few months
R L (15 days ago)
There are so many oversimplifications and incorrect definitions in this video. Suggest that you familiarize yourself with "expected value", "utility", and the time va,ur of money and then revise / rescript.
MadMaxV (15 days ago)
if i could choose not to pay insurance, i would choose that opttion, unfortunatly its the law that you MUST have insurance.. sooooo yeah
Floordford (15 days ago)
There is also the whole government forcing you to have insurance thing.
yogalD (16 days ago)
Lotteries are taxes on stupidity and insurance is a scam
Dick Head (16 days ago)
Lmao if it was a one time thing then I would obviously choose the 80% chance of $6.25
Ali Labeeb Alkoka (17 days ago)
This is interesting to hear. I learned a lot about gambling.
Incorrigible Panda (18 days ago)
Lotteries fall in a different category. For $2 buy in on a 500m lotto, you get to enter a drawing that if won, equals generational wealth.
Pot Head (16 days ago)
Most people who win the lottery won't even have it for their own generation
谢昊天 (18 days ago)
Just prospects theory.
SonicSP (18 days ago)
8:19 Its Behavioral Economics bro, which combines economics, psychology and probability. Expected profit/loss makes sense in stats theory but not in the real world because you know you have to live with the results.
Frieza 223 (18 days ago)
*back to gambling on gta* i go
Lars Murdoch Kalsta (19 days ago)
Okay but the $5 and $6.25 thing excellent actually even because you don't get to take it an infinite number of times you don't get to take it once so people don't think that way. People either want a guarantee of an extra $5 one time or are happy with not getting anything or more likely getting an unexpected $6.25. And with how that is structured you aren't losing $6.25 you're only need not gaining an unplanned for $6.25
Lachlan Gwynne (19 days ago)
Your thumbnails look awesome
milind maiti (20 days ago)
I would take the safe option because I don't get to do the experiment infinite times
TheFleet15 (21 days ago)
The 25 cents is probably going to be lost in my pocket so it's actually just 6 dollars
Y'all ever just z (21 days ago)
The blackjack dealer in GTA actully pulls cards out of his pockets .-.
AnuBius (25 days ago)
Meanwhile I was like "yeah id take the 80% bet and just take the sure 5$ in the other two options"
Sophie S (27 days ago)
Your explanation about lack of saving is incorrect, America might have a problem with people saving to little (in all honesty I am not convinced, but I am to lazy to get my books and look up the statistics), but most other developed countries (especially countries in (western) Europe (Eurocountries) and Japan) have a problem with people saving to much and not investing enough in the economy. This has lead to economists debating whether or not some economies are in what is called a liquidity trap (Keynes), meaning people save so much money and invest so little that interest rates do not have much affect anymore on the economy. This has lead to interest rates getting negative in the EU, which means that if commercial banks want to put money in an account with the ECB they have to PAY (instead of receiving) money to be allowed to put the money there (so imagine you go to the bank and you ask the bank to put your money on a savings account and the bank replies with "all right but you know you have to pay 0.5% every month to be able to put the money on an account here", and as absurd as it sounds that is one of the measures the ECB has taking to encourage commercial banks to give loans to people so they can invest and help the economy), the high savings of people has also lead the ECB to start with quantitive easing etc (which the Fed has also done in America by the way to stimulate people to invest and help the economy).
Darren Atm (27 days ago)
As Trump said: Dont be a gambler, better if you own the casino itself.
Diane Lee (26 days ago)
Darren Atm i generally avoid taking advice from trump but i guess each to their own
MC Hammer (28 days ago)
1:00 I get the point but this is just plain wrong. If you start a fair game of roulette without 0 and 00 and play an infinite amount of times, you will leave with $0.
MC Hammer (26 days ago)
@Wesley Chen Yes. Run a simulation and come back.
Wesley Chen (26 days ago)
No.
Tudor P (28 days ago)
The thing about insurance is while yes, were you to have infinite money and live forever getting insurance would lose you a small ammount of money per year, compared to the risk of actually crashing your car; people have neither of that or infinite life, so it CAN make logical sense to get insurance.
julius jones (1 month ago)
Yes I can type without looking
Todd Kelly (1 month ago)
Awesome job.
John (1 month ago)
Selling drugs sounds like the best gamble after hearing this.
Great Jävän (1 month ago)
You have a 80% chance of getting $6.25, while the other 20% chance of getting nothing. You’re not getting 80% OF $6.25. Why would you get $5 as an average from an infinite number of tries of you did not mention other chances of getting other values?
TaxationIsTheft (1 month ago)
in the 80% at 6.25 vs 100% at 5, the certain is preferable bc you're not going to run the bet an infinite amount of time in real life. it would have been more interesting if the uncertain event had a slightly higher EV, a risk premium so to speak...
TaxationIsTheft (1 month ago)
insurance is the same of the casino as in expected value but people buy insurance (when non mandatory) cause the effects on their net worth could be more dramatic if the event occurs than if the event does, depsite the fact that in the long run they shouldn't. it's not that they're irrational, especially if they know that they will "act" irrational in front of the pain of a loss. on the other hand, when you play a game with negative expected value at the casino, you're aware that losing 5% on average is greatly surpassed by the joy brought to you when you double or triple your bet (despite the fact that your wallet is lighter).
RandomGuineaPig Aviation (1 month ago)
the thing is that a "i win $5 100% of the time is only equal to "I win $20 25% of the time" if the $20 25% of the time is 4 times
Fre (1 month ago)
The thing is, it counts as entertainment. If you're having fun gambling, that's where the extra money is going
WilliamOccamensis (1 month ago)
It's easy: the gambler is paying for the entertainment value. The chance of winning big is a lot more entertaining than the chance of winning $20.
99% of you won’t GET IT (1 month ago)
I’ve made $100,000s playing roulette for 1 simple reason - the Casinos cheat & I know how. Every # on the TABLE has an electrode that measures how many chips are on each number for each spin. There is only ONE reason this - so that’s how you win at roulette - you’re welcome 😎
Lach Ford (1 month ago)
If the 0 and 00 didn't exist and you came in with $100 and played infinite times, wouldn't you leave with $0?
el komodos-drago (1 month ago)
May the odds be ever in your favour.
AZDuffman (1 month ago)
No, the odds are the same for every bet on the roulette wheel.
Luke Sutton (1 month ago)
This one dude has fifty channels, I get it, monetize monetize monetize but maybe you could be a little transparent when you have the same ad running on twenty different channels by the same voice. I get it, you dont like youtube's policy, going around it doesnt solve it
Esequiel Tovar (1 month ago)
.0001 percent chance of winning 500k
Malcolm Marriott (1 month ago)
Why do I have a military intranet. Is that connected to the server at 217 George St. & If your being paid what is the transaction.
Malcolm Marriott (1 month ago)
It is the a military intranet correct
HJ GE (1 month ago)
I would propose a completely different explanation of your example about giving someone 5 dollar. Because 80% chance for 6.25, requires 1) trust that you are honest and fair in how you come to this 80% and 2) it costs effort. Getting 5 dollars straight up, doesn't require any trust. You just give it to me. It also requires less effort. 5 dollars is simply of such low value, that people don't really care. And because people don't really care, they also don't want to put in the effort. The effort simply doesn't outweigh the gains. But looking at thins from a statistic perspective, doesn't really make sense to begin with. Because no one is exactly the average human, nor does one play an infinite amount of times. Like that, everyone thinks, and wants to think, they will stop after they have won. They however don't see and feel the psychological effect of addiction kick in. So it's not a statistical problem, it's a psychological problem. Because doing things that make statistically no sense, can still make sense when you take other factors into account.
CarsonFacePalmer (1 month ago)
Funny, I'm the exact opposite. I'd take the 80% chance at $6.25 over the 0.5% chance at $1000 any day.
⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻' (1 month ago)
squarespace sucks
Tales (1 month ago)
So, while I understand what was said, I can't relate to the phenomenon you are describing. You claim that "everyone just has some arbitrary point, where, given two options with the same value, they'll start accepting the risk over the sure money". In my own experience, as the chance of success diminishes and the reward increases, I become increasingly disinterested with the gamble. I suppose the aforementioned statement is true in the sense that I would shrug my shoulders in indifference given a choice between a 100% chance of getting $5 or a 99% chance of getting $5.05, since the potential negative reaction to the 1% chance loss is unlikely, and thus not worth the effort made to make a choice.
Tom Malfoy (1 month ago)
Economics is more complicated than quantum mechanics...
Javier Pan (1 month ago)
Humans are dumb
PasCorrect (1 month ago)
The fact that surprised me most was: "About half of Americans could not immediately come up with $2,000" ... Very sobering.
lolbot (1 month ago)
who keeps $2000 lying around, unless you're one of the 1%
Nick Welch (1 month ago)
Gambling itself is pure magic especially after hard day at work.
David H. (1 month ago)
Private lotteries being illegal is the perfect example of how we are the slaves and the government is the master. "Do as I say, not as I do you pathetic, ignorant mutts!" That's my evil Gov't impression.
Calum Hewitt (1 month ago)
Introducing premium bonds in the U.K.! oh wait it’s been around for years
Calum Hewitt (1 month ago)
Yeah that’s true, but even if I only win once, it’s worth more than the interest I’d get over the year
Septimus ii (1 month ago)
They've been around for a long time but I never fancied them. If I'm saving, I want a guaranteed interest
(2 months ago)
STONKS
CodingWithAsad (2 months ago)
nobody : Wendover Productions: 7:33 planes
Broockle (2 months ago)
I never understood it honestly. I've had the privilege to walk through Monaco, Macau and Las Vegas and I saw the same things. Huge fancy halls filled with slot machines, or gambling tables of varies kinds. There's expensive carpets, chandeliers, majestic architecture and gardens. Often times even free food for gamblers. After putting 2 and 2 together one should come to realize that gambling is ridiculously lucrative for the house. All this has been built using gambling money. How can anyone feel comfortable walking into and spending money to a business like that? It baffles me.
lolbot (1 month ago)
starts out as entertainment, ends up as an addiction
TURBO DIESEL (2 months ago)
I wish I could live in New Zealand were insurance isn't mandatory
Kyle Law (2 months ago)
Umm.... pretty sure you messed up the horse betting odds. If you put up $1 with 200/1 odds you win $200 so the payout is $201. Not $300...
Anthony Marici (2 months ago)
A ton of useless information.
TheUltimateMasters (2 months ago)
Lol i thought the banking thing at the end was gonna be a sponser
Matthias Y. Reich (2 months ago)
1. insurance it not a pure paying and giving calculations for most cases. If i buy a car, i might bot have the money to buy another one within the next 10 years. So its more like a credit where i pay interest regardless of me actually getting the money. 2. If i play the lottery, a large part of the value received, is dreaming about what I could buy if I won. And this value has to be included in the calculation. It’s basically like a cheap movie ticket where I for a few hours am introduced to an imaginary world where I’m a billionaire, rather than an imaginary world created by some movie director
Khang Pham (2 months ago)
am sorry but the math is wrong. 100% chance to get $5 you can run that 100x and still get $5 each times. 25% chance of getting $20 doesn't mean you'll get the $20 after certain times but actually you get 25% chance each times you might get $20. So the math is not the same.
freespeechisdead isdead (2 months ago)
On may 5th, I woke up at 5 am. I had been dreaming of the number 5 all night. I had the 5 dollar special at the diner for breakfast. I filled my car up with gas, it topped off at exactly 5 dollars. I said I have to go to the race track, it was 5 miles away. I got there at 5pm, just in time for the 5th race. I bet 5 thousand on the #5 horse. Sure enough, she came in 5th.
Michael Gray (10 hours ago)
@SANATH Rajesh sounds about right
lolbot (1 month ago)
lol
SANATH Rajesh (1 month ago)
freespeechisdead isdead A short, yet beautiful way to sum up gambling
Sandeep Biswas (2 months ago)
Well.. I don't get this concept of 100% chance of $5 being equal to 80% chance of $6.25. The chance is a percentage of probability to win against others. Not the percentage of value of the money. Can someone explain? Because at no point there is a probability of winning $5, it is always $6.25. So both amounts are never equal.
E1craZ4life (2 months ago)
If one person took the sure $5 infinite times and one person took the 80% chance of $6.25 infinite times, they would eventually have the same amount of money.
TheKill'emBoyz (2 months ago)
this is only true when you get the choice between $5 (100% chance) and $1000 (0.5% chance) an infinite amount of times. In most cases, you don't get this choice an infinite number of times and if you get the choice only once, then its a decision between $5 and $0.5, so it's pretty easy to choose now.
-Oo- (2 months ago)
Everyone: You can't loose money while running a Casino. Trump: Hold my wall.
Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus (28 days ago)
@M Whoever the actor may be and their education level does not make an action any less absolutely pointless. You could be a Nobel Prize laureate, but that doesn't make what you're doing any less meaningless. I am making no claim of your accomplishments as a person, I am making a claim of your accomplishment through that comment. I am in no way saying that you're contributing nothing to society or that you're in any way similar to them, but your ACTIONS at this very moment are contributing nothing to society and are actions similar to what they're doing.
M (28 days ago)
@Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus I do have a job and I do pay taxes.I finished a STEM University and I do not act as a victim nor do I put my people on second place. Yeah...aren t we so alike?
Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus (28 days ago)
@M You're contributing the same amount to society as them then. Absolutely nothing.
M (28 days ago)
@Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus I do not try to win hence you cannot win with leftist trash.I just challenge their fumb affirmations. I win nothing by proving a leftist how idiotic he/she is.
Xrayshot552 _ (2 months ago)
And that's why the riskiest game I play is blackjack
mini francis (2 months ago)
buying a AWP in CSGO is basically gambling if you win the round like 2 times you get money back if you die ur enemy can take the AWP and kill ur team
it's Julian (2 months ago)
What this video touched upon for only 2-3 seconds is the concept of marginal value. It's the determining factor for a lot of these gambles and why people overwhelmingly prefer certain odds of similar value. Most people will always choose a 100% to get 100,000,000$ over a 10% chance to win Several Trillion, despite the Trillion deal having much higher EV.
lucario719 (2 months ago)
the idea of a prized based savings account disgusts me on a personal level
lin kong (2 months ago)
1.商城开发:直销商城、分销商城、普通商城、拍卖、竞拍系统 2.直销系统:双轨、太阳线、三三复制、两两复制、大小功排、矩阵等 3.游戏:牧场养殖系统、农场果园种植系统、矿场游戏、等等 4.高端定制app开发、商城返利系统、VPAY系统、互助盘、分紅、分销、互助、返利、拆分盘系统等 5.区块链开发、虚拟货币挖矿、钱包开发、交易所 6.理想家园、九星(十三星)创客、跑分系统等 有以上需求请联系,专业技术团队开发 推荐项目,签订合同…… 您的回报可达项目资金的20%…… 有项目, 有需求的朋友们尽管介绍…… 项目10万.您的回报就是2万 有兴趣者小窗私聊 QQ: 844215438
alexandre cruzado (2 months ago)
I would just like to say that according to traditional economic rules casino could exist. Someone isn't juste offering you a bad deal, but sells you an experience, a good time. So the pleasure you take in gambling justifies the bad deal you get from the house
E1craZ4life (2 months ago)
Likewise, insurance companies are selling peace of mind to customers who have a way to avoid losing a lot of money due to unforeseen circumstances.
VineFynn (2 months ago)
You shouldn't have made this video. You clearly aren't qualified.
Stephen Andersen (3 months ago)
insurance works because humans don't live infinitely and the variance in the outcomes in a finite number of bets can be significant.
David Lopez (3 months ago)
Exactly the reason why a 1 time offer of a 100% chance of $5 is much better than a 1% chance of $500
esl gamer (3 months ago)
"conventual economics believes humans are rational" and that's why conventional economics is thick
Septimus ii (1 month ago)
Applying maths to human behaviour gets some lovely elegant economic models. Just a shame they're complete nonsense and even more of a shame that they're wisely used
Leonidas Sabr (3 months ago)
This is whh poker is best. You are playing another peraon not the house
Miller H (3 months ago)
My favorite game is the one they have at the bank. You put your card into the machine and press a button and money comes out every time. Best game by far.
TheNine AreMine (3 months ago)
Engineers like numbers... but those numbers never factor in the human cost. The lottery thing about it being "good", when you see people playing like $85(daily) to win $5(daily)... especially seniors. You will start to see the real world factor of "addiction".
ezzz9 (3 months ago)
Wow, that was some really bad math skills you showing everyone. worth the exact same amount?? LMAO on that one. Plus how did you forget about the Deductible with insurance?? Back to school for you. You need to go.
Black Knight (3 months ago)
Insurance is viable because the utility of money is not linear. Most folks would be homeless if they had a bad wreck and had to pay the medical bills. It is worth sacrificing expected value to be sure to avoid a scenario that ruins your life. On the other hand, a millionaire probably should shun insurance if his state allows him to do so. Of course, if you drive like I do, insurance is always the +EV move.
Chris Lindner (3 months ago)
Great video! I hadn't heard about the lottery savings accounts before. Neat concept! You didn't mention games of skill like poker that are also found at casinos. There, it can be a profitable endeavor for the player... although the vast majority of players are still losing players, and the house is taking a cut.
Jonathon Hendry (3 months ago)
"In a casino, at a racetrack, or with any form of gambling it's never a good deal for the bettor" COMPLETELY FALSE 1. Legal means could include: holecarding, card counting, shuffle tracking, ace sequencing, matched betting, bonus hunting etc. 2. Illegal means countless, a few: Slot manipulation, signalling, match fixing so many more Just completely wrong statement basically
Riasat202 (3 months ago)
People picked the 100% chance to win a $5 option because you left out the part about an infinite number of tries.
Mark Aleman (18 days ago)
Riasat202 This would change things because?
Stefano Cuter (20 days ago)
That's not the point... Even with only one try statistically they are the same bet: like getting 1$ or a 1% chance of getting 100$. The second time You have less probability to win, but if You do You'll win a lot more: This makes the two possible scenarios perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
Leord (27 days ago)
With truly infinite rolls, you will always be able get the maximum amount. At some point the average would be basically the max number (or infinitely close to it). So, the question is rather "how many rolls are we talking about"? At one single exchange the chance of no money is proportionately huge compared a sure thing. They are not worth "the same" , only "statistically the same". Our obsession with small chance of success is weird though.
I N K (1 month ago)
@Prabhanjan Sahoo if you have a 100% chance of winning 5 dollars and 25% chance of winning 20 dollars. You could just go with the first option, gamble four times and end up with 20 dollars with no chance of losing. But if you don't have infinite tries then the second choice doesn't seem all that pointless.
Rishi Gunness (3 months ago)
you gambled on weather or not i would like this video...I did
Dr Stoler (3 months ago)
I don't really understand how the math behind the infinite rolls works. If one has $100 and plays roulette with a 50% chance, it only takes one fail to lose that $100. How is it made back? How exactly is the value gained/lost calculated? It would also help to see a more in-depth explanation about how an 80% of $6.25 is equal to a 100% chance of $5.
E1craZ4life (2 months ago)
@Dr Stoler It's meant to be a point of reference; if the game was perfectly fair, the overall expected value is exactly 0, meaning no gain and no loss.
Dr Stoler (3 months ago)
@Jim Eriksson That I understand. However, the video proposed a theoretical 50% chance roulette with 0 and 00 absent. I however, do not understand how playing $100 with a 50% chance infinitely many times returns $100, since it only takes one time to lose it.
Jim Eriksson (3 months ago)
Just a hint: roulette has a green zero 0, si the odds aren’t 50-50
Uncle Joe Stalin (3 months ago)
Ok, say person 1 has $1m and person 2 has $40m. A coin toss is proposed. If person 1 wins he will get $1.25m & if person 2 wins he will get $1m. The person with $40m won't really be affected if they lose but the person with $1m will be broke. Thus, factors other than odds are at play. here. Same in car insurance. Being uninsured might cost you say $50k in total car repairs if you crash into someone. This is a significant sum for most. Thus, paying $1k for insurance is seen as worthwhile even if it is most likely a money loser.
Stefan Brule (3 months ago)
What a Rad Freaking Video!! I like all yours but that one was The Tits!
Voltage Drop (3 months ago)
lottery is just a fancy word for stupidity tax...