Proposition 3 shows that, unless an individual is "very" risk-averse, it is worthwhile to accept a logarithmic betting schedule and to announce true probabilities when faced with an arbitrary probability announcement by an opponent.
Proposition 3. Accepting a logarithmic bet schedule and announcing one's true probabilities regardless of the opponent's announced probabilities is preferable to not betting if one's absolute risk aversion function is less than unity. (155)
[Proof withheld - it was long and involved mathematical equations with symbols I didn't even recognize.]
Corollary. A risk-neutral individual should accept a logarithmic betting schedule and should announce his true probabilities regardless of what are the announced probabilities of his opponent. (157)I mean, give me a frakking break. Can you see Obama asking Congress to approve (and his constituents to put up with) a treaty that involved anything like this?* We already got the key insight - that differing beliefs about probabilities can support mutually acceptable agreements - last chapter. This kind of refinement doesn't serve any practical purpose that I can see, but it is precisely the kind of thing that political scientists love to do.
* It's fun to imagine, though. "Now, folks, what we have here is something they're calling a 'logarithmic bet schedule.' Now, I know - I know that's not a term everyone's use to hearing in their local grocery store. But it's really pretty simple. What it means is..."
No comments:
Post a Comment