How risky are you?

nelly_2

You can toss a coin 14 billion times and it can come up heads each and every time.

I wouldnt do it unless it was 100-1 minimum

GUMPO

nelly wrote:

You can toss a coin 14 billion times and it can come up heads each and every time.

I wouldnt do it unless it was 100-1 minimum

Would be great if you called heads Nelly:rotfl:

yung

being a retiree on a meagre pension don't think I can afford the risk

cwep2

Anyone who could live without their salary 'should' answer yes to anything better than evens. Of course if you couldn't then it is about sacrifice and how much the 'utility cost' of losing would hurt you vs the 'utility gain' of winning (ie it's not as simple as an equation). So if losig meant bread and milk for the next 6 months, and winning meant a nice holiday for a week, you may say well it's not worth it unless the chance of winning the holiday to 100 times more likely than the chance of living on bread and milk for 6 months.

Anyone who answered evens - you could do get those sorts of odds in many places so do you actually bet that sort of money? Please note I'm not talking about roulette type bets where you have a built in (small) disadvantage.

I can risk it so 2-1 or better is a no brainer - anyone want to offer those odds to me?

CP

STEVEN_ROBERT_TUCKEY

cwep2 wrote:

Anyone who could live without their salary 'should' answer yes to anything better than evens. Of course if you couldn't then it is about sacrifice and how much the 'utility cost' of losing would hurt you vs the 'utility gain' of winning (ie it's not as simple as an equation). So if losig meant bread and milk for the next 6 months, and winning meant a nice holiday for a week, you may say well it's not worth it unless the chance of winning the holiday to 100 times more likely than the chance of living on bread and milk for 6 months.

Anyone who answered evens - you could do get those sorts of odds in many places so do you actually bet that sort of money? Please note I'm not talking about roulette type bets where you have a built in (small) disadvantage.

I can risk it so 2-1 or better is a no brainer - anyone want to offer those odds to me?

CP

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the real odds you would get in this situation are 5/6 which is a 109% book.

Just look at the odds in real life situations, anytime you have an event with only two possible winners that are considered just as likely as each other those are the odds.
For example, when a football match goes to a penalty shootout and it can go either way you will get quoted odds of 5/6 for both teams.

I have never seen a 'two horse race' (for the uninitiated that doesn't mean a real horse race with only two horses, it's just a phrase used to describe an event with only two outcomes) where the odds on both were the same and it was not 5/6.
Anybody else ever seen more than 5/6 for BOTH?

Just found an example at Sky Bet:
Henry Premiership Goals 2006/2007
Under 26.5 5/6
Over 26.5 5/6
Most of the Premiership teams have a similar market with the same odds for one of their players.

In answer to your question, I've never bet that sort of money on a single hand but I have wagered a combined total of a years income in probably about 90 minutes playing European Blackjack with a 99.7% payout.
I think my record for a single days gambling is just under seven years.

STEVEN_ROBERT_TUCKEY

nelly wrote:

You can toss a coin 14 billion times and it can come up heads each and every time.

I wouldnt do it unless it was 100-1 minimum

No you can't.

Even if the coin was tossed once a second, it would still take you over 443 years; so you would have to live to several times the age of any other human being by which time you would have dementia and forgotten what you were doing, not to mention you would be too frail to even toss the coin because your bones would crumble under the weight of it.

Besides, after being tossed that many times the coin would have worn away so you wouldn't be able to tell which side was heads anyway.

Plus, by then the coin would be so old it would be a collectors item and you could just sell it.

cwep2

To clarify - I know several professional gamblers that exploit the fact that bookies underprice favourites (because joe punter on the street backs the favourite more than the underdog) and use betting exchanges where they use laying and backing of other outcomes to get a consistent positive return (many making tens of thousands per year for a few hours a week) without insider knowledge of the sports involved.

I didn't say you could walk into william hill and get better than a 50/50 chance - but there are plenty of articles on the net that give you the knowledge to gain a better than 50% chance in a gambling situation. There are also 'arbs' available to exploit if you are quick.

You are never going to find a binary event priced at <100% by a bookmaker (especially if you look at only one bookmakers odds). Compare many and you often find 'choice' prices and as I said before even arbs if you are quick and know what to look for. The competition between bookmakers and demographics of different betting populations mean that for complex outcomes (ie not just two or three possible results where most arbers focus) gives rise to opportunities for those who want to take them.

Sorry if this is too technical - I do not mean to patronise, but I was not exactly referring to a straightforward bet on sky-bet. Look on betfair and you will find plenty of two outcome examples at a 100.1% book, traditional bookmakers are only good for odds which they misprice.

irishwench69

wigginsmum wrote:

I won't even pay £1 for a lottery ticket so you're not getting your hands on my month's salary

Very true.....there have to be more sure-thing ways to make your fortune......

x

B4UgoZzz

I find it hard to understand the choice to never risk regardless.

Assuming, that most people's lives would not utterly collapse if they were to lose 1 month's salary, (if that's the case then fair enough) then to me it's just a question of where's the point at which it becomes tempting to you.

For example,
If you are risking £1,000 then it's likely that most people on this site would be too afraid to accept the coin flip for a chance to win £2,000.
However, if you stood with Bill Gates and he said... "OK Fred, if you win I'll give you £100 million" would all those people who said they'd never risk it, still say no?

If you would still say no, then what would you do if Bill said "Take the £100 million if you win and pay me just £10 if you lose? Surely, in this case everyone would say yes.

Therefore, the issue is what are the 2 numbers which would tempt you to accept.
I urge all those who's impulse was to vote 'never, regardless' in the poll, to re-evaluate their answer.

I imagine that losing a month's salary to most here would cause financial difficulty. It would probably require the bread-n-milk lifestyle for a few weeks to claw back the loss. That's the worst outcome I can imagine for most folks. If that's your downside of losing and the upside of winning was to fix up the financial security of everyone you care about instantly; or save countless lives in Africa for example; is it hand-on-heart something you'd say no to?

MSE_Martin

Just to say I'm really pleased to say the question caused so much debate. Personally I'm inclined to agree with B4UgoZzzz

In a couple of months I think i will redo the poll but with £100 rather than a month's salary and we'll see what the difference is.

Martin