Topic: Discussion about 10,000BTC Bet (Official) - page 55. (Read 104472 times)

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:25:00 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:10:08 AM

What you're saying here is that any venture that has it much riskier than average should never be expected to payout?

No, just that you should never risk what you're not prepared to lose, and if you lose it, accept the fact that you lost it, by taking a bad risk.

You're still considering risk a binary concept. It's not. Would you say the same statement about a venture with low risk? You need to define the risk you refer to in terms of the probability it will not pay. Then you can estimate how much to invest.

Risk may be a sliding scale, but results are binary. Either the risk pays off, or it doesn't.

And until it does, you have to act as though it will not. Any other course is inviting disaster.

How do you decide how much to invest in any given scheme then?

Standard risk/reward calculation. But I never risk more than I can afford to lose. I understand that I am taking a risk, and I may not be able to recoup it. I don't assume that anything I "have coming" will actually come.

A pessimist is never disappointed.

If you invest in multiple investments, in amounts inversely proportional to the level of risk, then in the long run you can expect a particular return (and, assuming you calculated the risk correctly, any difference is variance). If you assumed the investments never matured, it would make financial planning difficult.

DigitalHermit

full member

Activity: 150

Merit: 100

Thank you! Thank you! ...

Quote from: myrkul on August 31, 2012, 08:39:21 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:32:40 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:25:00 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:10:08 AM

What you're saying here is that any venture that has it much riskier than average should never be expected to payout?

No, just that you should never risk what you're not prepared to lose, and if you lose it, accept the fact that you lost it, by taking a bad risk.

You're still considering risk a binary concept. It's not. Would you say the same statement about a venture with low risk? You need to define the risk you refer to in terms of the probability it will not pay. Then you can estimate how much to invest.

Risk may be a sliding scale, but results are binary. Either the risk pays off, or it doesn't.

And until it does, you have to act as though it will not. Any other course is inviting disaster.

How do you decide how much to invest in any given scheme then?

Standard risk/reward calculation. But I never risk more than I can afford to lose. I understand that I am taking a risk, and I may not be able to recoup it. I don't assume that anything I "have coming" will actually come.

A pessimist is never disappointed.

Yes, never invest more than you are willing to lose. That's not pessimism, that's realism!

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:32:40 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:25:00 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:10:08 AM

What you're saying here is that any venture that has it much riskier than average should never be expected to payout?

No, just that you should never risk what you're not prepared to lose, and if you lose it, accept the fact that you lost it, by taking a bad risk.

You're still considering risk a binary concept. It's not. Would you say the same statement about a venture with low risk? You need to define the risk you refer to in terms of the probability it will not pay. Then you can estimate how much to invest.

Risk may be a sliding scale, but results are binary. Either the risk pays off, or it doesn't.

And until it does, you have to act as though it will not. Any other course is inviting disaster.

How do you decide how much to invest in any given scheme then?

Standard risk/reward calculation. But I never risk more than I can afford to lose. I understand that I am taking a risk, and I may not be able to recoup it. I don't assume that anything I "have coming" will actually come.

A pessimist is never disappointed.

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: JoelKatz on August 31, 2012, 08:03:28 AM

(Not that I think it matters. I would be quite literally stunned if Matthew defaults.)

You think he will pay?

I fully expect him to, but I wouldn't risk too much anyway.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:25:00 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:10:08 AM

What you're saying here is that any venture that has it much riskier than average should never be expected to payout?

No, just that you should never risk what you're not prepared to lose, and if you lose it, accept the fact that you lost it, by taking a bad risk.

You're still considering risk a binary concept. It's not. Would you say the same statement about a venture with low risk? You need to define the risk you refer to in terms of the probability it will not pay. Then you can estimate how much to invest.

Risk may be a sliding scale, but results are binary. Either the risk pays off, or it doesn't.

And until it does, you have to act as though it will not. Any other course is inviting disaster.

How do you decide how much to invest in any given scheme then?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:25:00 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:10:08 AM

What you're saying here is that any venture that has it much riskier than average should never be expected to payout?

No, just that you should never risk what you're not prepared to lose, and if you lose it, accept the fact that you lost it, by taking a bad risk.

You're still considering risk a binary concept. It's not. Would you say the same statement about a venture with low risk? You need to define the risk you refer to in terms of the probability it will not pay. Then you can estimate how much to invest.

Risk may be a sliding scale, but results are binary. Either the risk pays off, or it doesn't.

And until it does, you have to act as though it will not. Any other course is inviting disaster.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:10:08 AM

What you're saying here is that any venture that has it much riskier than average should never be expected to payout?

No, just that you should never risk what you're not prepared to lose, and if you lose it, accept the fact that you lost it, by taking a bad risk.

You're still considering risk a binary concept. It's not. Would you say the same statement about a venture with low risk? You need to define the risk you refer to in terms of the probability it will not pay. Then you can estimate how much to invest.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: organofcorti on August 31, 2012, 08:10:08 AM

What you're saying here is that any venture that has it much riskier than average should never be expected to payout?

No, just that you should never risk what you're not prepared to lose, and if you lose it, accept the fact that you lost it, by taking a bad risk.

unclescrooge

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: JoelKatz on August 31, 2012, 08:03:28 AM

Quote from: unclescrooge on August 31, 2012, 06:55:43 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on August 31, 2012, 06:51:52 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on August 31, 2012, 08:03:28 AM

I disagree. It's that reliance that lost you money. A bet is a risk. You should never rely on a risk paying off.

The reliance is a direct consequence of the bet. Whether or not you "should" do it is irrelevant. The fact is that many people did do and did it as a direct result of the bet.

No. Everyone is responsible for his own acts.

Matthew never forced anyone to not sell his pirate debt or buy pirate debt to "hedge" the bet.

What you're saying is the road to collectivism, to serfdom, this idea that one can blame others for his own mistakes.

That is complete insanity.

Say I own a catering service. I contract with a shrimp supplier to provide me 150 pounds of shrimp on a particular date at a particular price. Are you saying I shouldn't rely on the supplier to provide me that shrimp? What should I do? Should I also buy 150 pounds of shrimp at the grocery store in case the shrimp supplier doesn't deliver the shrimp?

If the supplier just chooses not to provide me with the shrimp and I wind up being unable to do the catering job, are you saying that's my own fault for relying on the shrimp supplier and that I'm responsible for my own acts?

The whole reason we make agreements with other people is so that we can rely on them! That's the benefit we obtain and that's what we're paying for.

I'm not talking about blaming others for one's own mistakes. I'm talking about blaming people for not doing what they promised to do and the damages proximately caused by us relying on them to do what they promised to do.

Quote

Personal responsibility is hard for some people. I get that. Doesn't make trying to blame other people for your bad decisions any more acceptable.

When the "bad decision" was trusting someone else to keep their word, you absolutely should blame the other person.

(Not that I think it matters. I would be quite literally stunned if Matthew defaults.)

Actually you're right, when I think of it, trust is the essence of capitalism. I trust my employer to pay my check, or i'll be in the forest hunting already.
But still, you can blame someone for not keeping his word, but not consequences of your own acts, regardless of the reason you made them.

You have to draw a line, adn I think the line is your own act.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: unclescrooge on August 31, 2012, 06:55:43 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on August 31, 2012, 06:51:52 AM

I disagree. It's that reliance that lost you money. A bet is a risk. You should never rely on a risk paying off.

The reliance is a direct consequence of the bet. Whether or not you "should" do it is irrelevant. The fact is that many people did do and did it as a direct result of the bet.

No. Everyone is responsible for his own acts.

Matthew never forced anyone to not sell his pirate debt or buy pirate debt to "hedge" the bet.

What you're saying is the road to collectivism, to serfdom, this idea that one can blame others for his own mistakes.

That is complete insanity.

Say I own a catering service. I contract with a shrimp supplier to provide me 150 pounds of shrimp on a particular date at a particular price. Are you saying I shouldn't rely on the supplier to provide me that shrimp? What should I do? Should I also buy 150 pounds of shrimp at the grocery store in case the shrimp supplier doesn't deliver the shrimp?

Ahh... You said the magic word. Let's compare these bets, shall we?

Matt's: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1113117

Vandroiy's: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1013589

Notice anything different about them?

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: JoelKatz on August 31, 2012, 06:03:58 AM

Quote from: myrkul on August 30, 2012, 07:44:41 PM

But your bet with Matthew will lose you no money if he skips out on paying, you'll still have the money you "risked", just not the amount he promised you.

That's simply not true. If you relied on the bet and suffered a loss due to that reliance, then the bet lost you money.

I disagree. It's that reliance that lost you money. A bet is a risk. You should never rely on a risk paying off.

Not much point in risk analysis then.

What you're saying here is that any venture that has it much riskier than average should never be expected to payout? Then to you investments are binary:either risk free, or infinitely risky.

You can define a risk by how much belief you have in it paying off. Believing a risk will never pay off would mean you wouldn't invest in that venture.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: unclescrooge on August 31, 2012, 06:55:43 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on August 31, 2012, 06:51:52 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on August 31, 2012, 06:51:52 AM

I disagree. It's that reliance that lost you money. A bet is a risk. You should never rely on a risk paying off.

The reliance is a direct consequence of the bet. Whether or not you "should" do it is irrelevant. The fact is that many people did do and did it as a direct result of the bet.

No. Everyone is responsible for his own acts.

Matthew never forced anyone to not sell his pirate debt or buy pirate debt to "hedge" the bet.

What you're saying is the road to collectivism, to serfdom, this idea that one can blame others for his own mistakes.

That is complete insanity.

Say I own a catering service. I contract with a shrimp supplier to provide me 150 pounds of shrimp on a particular date at a particular price. Are you saying I shouldn't rely on the supplier to provide me that shrimp? What should I do? Should I also buy 150 pounds of shrimp at the grocery store in case the shrimp supplier doesn't deliver the shrimp?

If the supplier just chooses not to provide me with the shrimp and I wind up being unable to do the catering job, are you saying that's my own fault for relying on the shrimp supplier and that I'm responsible for my own acts?

The whole reason we make agreements with other people is so that we can rely on them! That's the benefit we obtain and that's what we're paying for.

I'm not talking about blaming others for one's own mistakes. I'm talking about blaming people for not doing what they promised to do and the damages proximately caused by us relying on them to do what they promised to do.

Quote

Personal responsibility is hard for some people. I get that. Doesn't make trying to blame other people for your bad decisions any more acceptable.

When the "bad decision" was trusting someone else to keep their word, you absolutely should blame the other person.

(Not that I think it matters. I would be quite literally stunned if Matthew defaults.)

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM