No, because I have no way to improve my ability to see loopholes and flaws, so there’s always going to be residual uncertainty that can’t be reduced. Risk aversion does the rest.
That’s true in any scenario, though. For all of life really. The ratio of likelihood of loopholes costing you money versus losing the best costing you money doesn’t matter, as long as their absolute values are both low. And shoring up ambiguous language in the bet is how you make the former low.
Sure, I hear you there. Is there a way I could reword or clarify that would assuage that concern?
No, because I have no way to improve my ability to see loopholes and flaws, so there’s always going to be residual uncertainty that can’t be reduced. Risk aversion does the rest.
That’s true in any scenario, though. For all of life really. The ratio of likelihood of loopholes costing you money versus losing the best costing you money doesn’t matter, as long as their absolute values are both low. And shoring up ambiguous language in the bet is how you make the former low.