Well first of all I don't agree that it leaves out a lot of info; the variance of a single coin flip is pretty trivially .25 which I don't agree is 'particularly high' nor does it need to be stated. I thought it was pretty clear that this was an aspect being considered given that I specifically drew attention to the fact that I one expected value is a 5000% increase over the other rather than simply being higher.
The italicised is incorrect; it actually explicitly is an objective measure which one can use to claim one is 'better'. Just as standard deviation is an objective measure one can use to claim one is correct. Just as one can use expected utility to claim one is correct. There is objectively a 'best' decision depending on the metric which you use to analyse the question; that doesn't mean it's universal or every metric is going to result in the same 'best' decision.
It's pretty obvious that what metric one uses to analyse the question is inherently going to be subjective and non-universal since the entire concept of some amount of money being life changing is subjective. I thought it was pretty redundant to explicitly specify 'for me' at the end of every sentence in my previous post in a topic which is inherently about an entirely subjective and personal aspect; I don't think I ever claimed it was an objective mathematical one (and attention was explicitly drawn to this through the use of emphatic quotes around correct).
Your comment here that it's a subjective question is something I absolutely agree with, however I strongly disagree with your previous claim that Expected Value only has utility in the context of multiple trials is simply wrong.
Last edited:
