The Reasoner 6 (3) (2012)
It is commonly believed that when a finite value is received in a game that has an infinite expected value, it is in one’s interest to redo the game. We have argued against this belief, at least in the repeated St Petersburg two-envelope case. We also show a case where repeatedly opting for a higher expected value leads to a worse outcome.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Evaluating the Pasadena, Altadena, and St Petersburg Gambles.Terrence L. Fine - 2008 - Mind 117 (467):613-632.
On the Normative Dimension of St. Petersburg Paradox.David Teira - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37 (2):210-23.
Clark and Shackel on the Two-Envelope Paradox.Christopher J. G. Meacham & Jonathan Weisberg - 2003 - Mind 112 (448):685-689.
Paradox Lost, but in Which Envelope?Olav Gjelsvik - 2002 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (3):353-362.
The Two Envelope Paradox and Using Variables Within the Expectation Formula.Eric Schwitzgebel & Josh Dever - 2008 - Sorites:135-140.
Added to index2009-11-15
Total downloads53 ( #97,548 of 2,158,893 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #193,044 of 2,158,893 )
How can I increase my downloads?