I don´t really see how me chosing 1A > 1b and 2b >2A is a flaw of mine. First of all, my utility function, which i have inherited from millions of years of evolution, tells me to SOMETIMES take risks IF I CAN AFFORD IT, especially when the increasing stake outweighs the increasing risk.
This is how I see it: If it was my life at stake, I would of course try to raise the odds. But this is extra money. I don´t even starve if i don´t get the money.
If I am not certain I can get the money in case 2, I think that lowering my win-chance with 1⁄100 is worth to raise the stake with 3000 dollars, which is 3000/24000 = 1⁄8 of the original stake. When I lower my odds with 1 % I raise the stake with 12,5 %.
Since the outcome is random anyhow, AND not in my favor, and the risk increase is only 1⁄100, I take my chances.
I don´t really see how me chosing 1A > 1b and 2b >2A is a flaw of mine. First of all, my utility function, which i have inherited from millions of years of evolution, tells me to SOMETIMES take risks IF I CAN AFFORD IT, especially when the increasing stake outweighs the increasing risk.
This is how I see it: If it was my life at stake, I would of course try to raise the odds. But this is extra money. I don´t even starve if i don´t get the money.
If I am not certain I can get the money in case 2, I think that lowering my win-chance with 1⁄100 is worth to raise the stake with 3000 dollars, which is 3000/24000 = 1⁄8 of the original stake. When I lower my odds with 1 % I raise the stake with 12,5 %.
Since the outcome is random anyhow, AND not in my favor, and the risk increase is only 1⁄100, I take my chances.