1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Ещё 3 бампа.

Вот, допустим у моих соседей сейчас происходит утечка газа. Это маловероятное событие, но оно вполне возможно, такое происходит то и дело. Пусть шанс взрыва 0.01%. Я сейчас лягу спать. Если прямо надо мной взорвется квартира, возможно, я даже не узнаю об этом. Имеет ли значение, какой шанс взрыва? Если я проснусь утром, значит она не взорвалась.

Будто бы нет разницы, она или взрывается, или нет, важен только исход. Всё.

>>119238487 (OP)
Материальные блага закрывают только 2\7 первых ступеней потребностей по пирамиде Маслоу. На оставшиеся 5 они влияют довольно косвенно, тащемта для сытых европейцев\американцев такая игра не будет иметь смысла.

Rehearse the mantra that will get you significantly closer to economic rationality: you win a few, you lose a few. The main purpose of the mantra is to control your emotional response when you do lose.
The mantra works when the gambles are genuinely independent of each other; it does not apply to multiple investments in the same industry, which would all go bad together. It works only when the possible loss does not cause you to worry about your total wealth. If you would take the loss as significant bad news about your economic future, watch it! It should not be applied to long shots, where the probability of winning is very small for each bet. If you have the emotional discipline that this rule requires, you will never consider a small gamble in isolation or be loss averse for a small gamble.
Broad framing blunted the emotional reaction to losses and increased the willingness to take risks. The combination of loss aversion and narrow framing is a costly curse. Individual investors can avoid that curse, achieving the emotional benefits of broad framing while also saving time and agony, by reducing the frequency with which they check how well their investments are doing. Closely following daily fluctuations is a losing proposition, because the pain of the frequent small losses exceeds the pleasure of the equally frequent small gains.
The deliberate avoidance of exposure to short-term outcomes improves the quality of both decisions and outcomes.
A commitment not to change one’s position for several periods (the equivalent of “locking in” an investment) improves financial performance.
Having a risk policy that they routinely apply whenever a relevant problem arises. Familiar examples of risk policies are “always take the highest possible deductible when purchasing insurance” and “never buy extended warranties.” A risk policy is a broad frame.
Reduce or eliminate the pain of the occasional loss by the thought that the policy that left you exposed to it will almost certainly be financially advantageous over the long run.
The outside view and the risk policy are remedies against two distinct biases that affect many decisions: the exaggerated optimism of the planning fallacy and the exaggerated caution induced by loss aversion.
Top managers of the 25 divisions of a large company. He asked them to consider a risky option in which, with equal probabilities, they could lose a large amount of the capital they controlled or earn double that amount. None of the executives was willing to take such a dangerous gamble. Thaler then turned to the CEO of the company, who was also present, and asked for his opinion. Without hesitation, the CEO answered, “I would like all of them to accept their risks.” In the context of that conversation, it was natural for the CEO to adopt a broad frame that encompassed all 25 bets.
He could count on statistical aggregation to mitigate the overall risk.
Money is a proxy for points on a scale of self-regard and achievement.
Finance research has documented a massive preference for selling winners rather than losers - a bias that has been given an opaque label: the disposition effect. The disposition effect is an instance of narrow framing. The investor has set up an account for each share that she bought, and she wants to close every account as a gain. A rational agent would have a comprehensive view of the portfolio.
The sunk-cost fallacy keeps people for too long in poor jobs, unhappy marriages, and unpromising research projects.