[AusRace] loss aversion

[r]

interestingly number #3 has 20 volunteers, where as the number of 
inoculation is not detailed, so there may be an adavantage for punters one 
way or the other depending on amount of availiable 
inoculations..................and how smart/game the bidders are ?







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "r" <speedpcs at bigpond.net.au>
To: "AusRace Mailing List" <ausrace at ausrace.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [AusRace] loss aversion


> OK, i will bite
>
> Amount of money really is personal decision, it changes with everyone, and
> comparision/value is pointless IMO
>
> BUT, with a quick read i sum up as follows
>
> #1 and #2 appear to be of exactly (technicaly) same value on paper (feel
> good factors may vary values with some)
>
> #3. just appears to be the reverse of #1 and #2, therefore similar value 
> in
> reverse?(plus % to turn person into a punter in this scenario, bigger the
> punter you are, the smaller the variation you will accept, non punters 
> will
> need a bigger variation before getting involved)
>
> #4. no (no further explaination needed, is #4 to confuse people about the
> above ? )
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rob Waterhouse" <robbie at robbiewaterhouse.com>
> To: "'AusRace Mailing List'" <ausrace at ausrace.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 4:41 AM
> Subject: [AusRace] loss aversion
>
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> I recently saw these extreme "tests" of "loss aversion" (people's tendency
> to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains) and thought you 
> might
> find them interesting:
>
>
> Scenario one:
>
> Assume that, while attending the movies last week, you inadvertently 
> exposed
> yourself to a rare, fatal disease.
>
> If you contract the disease, you will die a quick and painless death in 
> one
> week. The chance you will contract the disease is exactly 0.001, that is,
> one chance in a 1,000. Once you get the disease, there is no cure, but you
> can take an inoculation now which will prevent your getting the disease.
>
> Unfortunately, there is a limited supply of the inoculation and they will 
> be
> sold to the highest bidders. What is the most, assuming you can borrow the
> money to pay at a low interest rate if need be, you are willing to pay for
> this inoculation?
>
>
> Scenario two:
>
> Assume that, while attending the movies last week, you inadvertently 
> exposed
> yourself to a rare, fatal disease.
>
> If you contract the disease, you will die a quick and painless death in 
> one
> week. The chance you will contract the disease is exactly 0.004, that is,
> four  chances  in a 1,000. Once you get the disease, there is no cure, but
> you can take an inoculation now which will be 25% effective, in other 
> words,
> reducing your risk to 0.003.
>
> Unfortunately, there is a limited supply of the inoculation and they will 
> be
> sold to the highest bidders. What is the most, assuming you can borrow the
> money to pay at a low interest rate if need be, you are willing to pay for
> this inoculation?
>
>
> Scenario three:
>
> A professor at a medical school is doing research on the disease in 
> Scenario
> one. He is recruiting volunteers who would be required to expose 
> themselves
> to a 0.001 (one chance in a 1000) risk of getting the disease. No
> inoculations are available, so it is a 0.001 chance of death.
>
> The 20 volunteers who demand the least money, will be chosen. What is the
> least amount of money you would require to participate in this experiment?
>
>
> Scenario four:
>
> Suppose you were the president or similar of country of 10,000,000 people
> and deity or similar offered a wonderful gift that would greatly improve 
> the
> lives of most people but demanded, in a Faustian bargain, the annual
> sacrifice of  1,000 lives, chosen at random, dying horrible deaths.
>
> Would you agree?
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] On
> Behalf Of scott mcdonagh
> Sent: Saturday, 2 May 2009 9:35 AM
> To: AusRace Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Bingo punter
>
> r
>
> I had hold of a hypothesis from a American betting team.
>
> They concluded that longshots were overbet due to the rank and file 
> punters
> looking for a higher return from a minimal investment.
>
> A bit like buyers of newsagents Scratchies.
>
> So would that be classified as Bingo Punters? , I would say yes.
>
> Also I read about a experiment that involved moneymangement regarding
> gambling, they found that by large majority people will reduce their
> investment when in profit , but increase their investment when
> losing .(chasing-loss aversion)
>
> It didn't matter if the probabilities for a investment were higher when in
> profit they dramatically reduce their investment,and when the 
> probabilities
> were lower for a certain investment it didn't matter , they would increase
> their investment.
>
> There was a lot more to the studies but that was the crux of it.
>
> My view is that most punters have limited believes, but capital 
> restriction
> would play a significant part.
>
> The couple people that held this experiment won some kind of Nobel prize
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> actionratings
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: r <speedpcs at bigpond.net.au>
> To: AusRace Mailing List <ausrace at ausrace.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 2 May, 2009 3:26:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Bingo punter
>
> to clarify return %'s
>
> pro punters 90%
> average punters 80%
>
> there are less actual pro punters sharing that 90% return (compared to
> average punters sharing approx 80%) , which takes the pro punters 
> individual
>
> returns over 100%, and into the profit range
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "r" <speedpcs at bigpond.net.au>
> To: "AusRace Mailing List" <ausrace at ausrace.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 3:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Bingo punter
>
>
>> approx
>>
>> tote returns
>>
>>
>> Overall tote return 85%
>>
>> pro punters 90%
>>
>> averager ratings punter 80%
>>
>> Bingo punter (backing horses 2/1 to 6/1 approx) 85%
>>
>>
>>
>> all figures just to help get an idea of returns, actual figures probably
>> closer, example pro 87%, ratings punter 83%, bingo 85%
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "John Doepel" <glenglen at iinet.net.au>
>> To: "'AusRace Mailing List'" <ausrace at ausrace.com>
>> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Bingo punter
>>
>>
>>> r,
>>>
>>> 1. Your 80-83-85 is across the field
>>> - in the 90's for favs
>>> - in the <80s for long shots
>>> So, first, you need to rephrase the question for different groups
>>>
>>> 2. Why are you taking 82%tote when 91, say, for best tote; 93, say for,
>>> Betfair, etc, etc
>>>
>>> So is the question random selections for odds on favs on Betfair at
>>> random
>>> pre-post times?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com [mailto:ausrace-bounces at ausrace.com] 
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of r
>>> Sent: Friday, 1 May 2009 7:54 PM
>>> To: AusRace Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Bingo punter
>>>
>>> Bingo player verses real punter
>>>
>>> Strictly Theory only...................
>>>
>>> Can you mprove your betting returns by random selections.????
>>>
>>> Your tote returns approx 85%
>>>
>>> Pro punters take approx 5% of that, to make there own profits.
>>>
>>> That leaves approx 80% for normal punters backing horses they think will
>>> win, or are good value. So that's a loss over the longer term for the
>>> average punter who takes on a pro punter at is own game (backing horses
>>> on
>>> skill/value), when compared to the average return of the tote.
>>>
>>> The average punter (backing horses on skill/value) is trying to back
>>> horses
>>> they think are good value (and obviously there not, otherwise they would
>>> be
>>> making profits instead of losses) , this results in the pro punter (who
>>> is
>>> really the one backing horses at value) getting some of the average
>>> punters
>>>
>>> cash, as he is the one who is really backing horses at good value odds.
>>>
>>> Value/skill Punters backing the wrong horses for the wrong reasons, 
>>> makes
>>> the pro selections good value.
>>>
>>> But if your a bingo player (back horses on numbers only) your betting on
>>> random selections, so if you back random horses that are considered good
>>> value (strictly by odds, not form) around 2/1 to 6/1, you should tehn 
>>> get
>>> the approx 83% return average tote return over a long term? As the bingo
>>> player will also being backing some of the horses the pro's punt, that
>>> most
>>> average punters believe are not value.
>>>
>>> If so "The unskilled bingo player" therefore out performs the real
>>> average
>>> joe punter punting who is trying to punt for value.
>>>
>>> Therefore is the average skill/value punter better off backing horses at
>>> random ?, instead of trying to use knowledge to find the winner??? (80%
>>> return for average skilled/value punters, 85% for random punters ) ?????
>>>
>>> *****Or is the secret for the average punter to find horses that are
>>> short
>>> odds, but appear poor value to the average skill/value punter, or 
>>> backing
>>> the horse of least value according to your own ratings???
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusRace mailing list
>>> AusRace at ausrace.com
>>> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/ausrace
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusRace mailing list
>>> AusRace at ausrace.com
>>> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/ausrace
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusRace mailing list
>> AusRace at ausrace.com
>> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/ausrace
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusRace mailing list
> AusRace at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/ausrace
>
>
>
>      Enjoy a safer web experience. Upgrade to the new Internet Explorer 8
> optimised for Yahoo!7. Get it now.
> _______________________________________________
> AusRace mailing list
> AusRace at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/ausrace
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusRace mailing list
> AusRace at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/ausrace
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusRace mailing list
> AusRace at ausrace.com
> http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/ausrace