[mojed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is because +ve utility derived from winning is greater in magnitude than -ve utility resulting from losing (though rake plays a role too).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. Do you understand the concept of marginal utility?

Why "should" wealthy people use their money to help others?
That's another debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said that I assumed the gamblers were risk lovers, who have increasing marginal utility. So for 0EV gambles between risk lovers, utility is created.

Marginal utility can then be used to answer your question of why should the wealthy use their money to help others. If we have diminishing marginal utilty as wealth increases, then utility is maximised when wealth is distributed. I didn't say they "should" however, I just mentioned an ethical framework (utilitarianism) which would support that.

You're right, I didn't mention the merits of purchasing SUVs.

Pros:

They are good for the economy, at least, the SUV producers within the economy.

They provide better vision of the road for the driver and passenger.

The passengers are less likely to die/be injured in an accident.

Cons:

In the event of an accident, passengers of the other vehicle are more likely to die/be injured.

If two SUVs are to crash, the passengers of both are more likely to die/be injured than if two non-SUVs were to crash. (In fact, you can see than owning an SUV is much like a game theoretical problem, you gain from owning one no matter what the nemesis does).

The chasis (though this is not the case for all SUVs) are more rigid than in standard vehicles (due to the history of off road use).

They roll easily.

They obscure road vision for other road users (again, a game theory problem).

They are less fuel efficient than smaller vehicles.

Do you own an SUV?

I know that insurance doesn't equal distribution, I was suggesting that is what optimizer was interpreting it as.


[ QUOTE ]
"Nothing real happens" is incorrect, as you've taken millions (not merely $10K, so as to lower the risk of ruin) out of circulation to afford that luxury.

[/ QUOTE ]

In hindsight, my argument about money being taken out of circulation was wrong, as the money goes into bank accounts. I'm not sure whether you've understood my point seemorenuts, you probably have, you seem smart enough, but I'll try another example. When Ivey (again, I don't know who won the money off Negreanu) win 500k off Negreanu, I doubt his consumption habits change. Maybe they do, maybe he goes out and spends it. But I imagine that he is so wealthy that it doesn't alter his consumption. I would imagine it goes from Negreanu's bank account to Ivey's, and sits there. Some day, it will end up back in Negreanu's, and sit there. Ping-pong. The bets are inconsequential unless the winner spends the money, and it is this spending I think opens up the question (which, forgive me that I introduced but I feel we are allowed to expand on ideas) of morality.