[ QUOTE ]
i could write other preferences that result in 100% hedges, even ones that are continuously differentiable,
[/ QUOTE ]
Really? I doubt you can come up with anything reasonable, since with a smooth utility function with positive value for money, the derivative of the expected utility of hedging is not 0 at a 100% hedge, and the derivative should be 0 at even a local optimum. Do you think it is a good idea for you to make such statments before actually trying?
Your first attempt was to assume that there is a kink at +$475. Was that reasonable? No. Imagine that just before the Mansion promotion, an interviewer was asking someone about their levels of risk aversion:
<ul type="square">Suppose we give you $n, and then let you bet on a coinflip, risking 10 to win 11. Please state how much would you wager at each level of N.
0: Maybe $5.
10: Still $5.
100: Maybe $10.
1000: I think I'd bet $20.
10000: Gamboool! I'd bet $1000, then.
500: Maybe $15.
475: Not a single penny. The difference between gaining $475 and gaining $474.90 is greater than the difference between gaining $475.11 and gaining $475.
450: Then I'd bet $10.[/list]Is this really supposed to be a plausible pre-Mansion interview of an advantage gambler who hedged 100%? It's absurdly contrived.
[ QUOTE ]
but i fear that they would elicit more long and boring responses from you.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are bored when people point out that you are both rude and wrong? Does this mean it happens frequently?
Despite having "econ" in both of your names, you have shown no command of basic economic theory, only irrelevant statements, empty boasts, and condescension. (Meanwhile, I've made a point many people have stated is interesting.) I will ignore you henceforth.