casino side bet
Theres a progressive jackpot at my local casino poker game. Its a bet you can make against the house for $1. it pays out
It's going to be difficult to talk about this without sounding like a bougie pos, but...
I'll add an additional one: the utility of money. Having $3.2M isn't "worth" twice as much to an individual as having $1.6M. (Just think of impact on quality of life).
$1M isn't what it used to be, and I could understand arguments that $3.2M is enough to instantly quit your 40h/week job but $
I'm not gonna fight too vociferously over whether I put the exact right number of 9s in there much less whether the last digit should be a 5 instead, but this just seems on the order of magnitude of correct.
$1.6mm is right about the point where you hit the 4% rule for median expenses, so you can either retire or just work a passion job for spending money.* That's not to say that any dollar after $1.6mm is worthless; just that it's worth less.
$1mm is enough to buy a half million dollar home with cash, pay off all your other debts, take a year off work, put $100k toward self-publishing and promoting your novel, and still have plenty left over for a rainy day. Again, that doesn't make money beyond that worthless, but you are already playing life on easy mode so you're going to get diminishing returns as you improve your scenario to "very easy" or "super easy" mode.
The idea that going from winning $0 to $100k post tax on Deal or No Deal is an equivalent leap to winning $1.25mm instead of $1.0mm sounds roughly correct (if-even-conservative).
But again, maybe it's 99.99995% or smth, IDFK, I don't think the exact number is necessary to understand the concept.
*All of this assumes you manage the lump sum as responsibly as you manage your precious money you earned from labor, but the fact that people are profligate with such a big score only amplifies the point that such money will have less real world utility.
Would assume a correct-ish graph has steps, Eg.$0-$2k 100%$2k-$20k declines slowly and linearly$20k-$200k declines less slowly but still mostly linear...then somewhere between $200k and say $4M you get to the point (for most people) where passive income on easy/safe investments with the money means you have "infinite money", unless you start spending more, so the value drops of
Feels like you're just describing a less accurate, poor-man's version of an exponential decrease in value. Not sure why you wouldn't just use the actual mathematical function that accomplishes the same thing but better :/
I have so many more questions than this.
Don't let the Tipping Containment Thread get wind of this.
Feels like you're just describing a less accurate, poor-man's version of an exponential decrease in value. Not sure why you wouldn't just use the actual mathematical function that accomplishes the same thing but better :/
A couple of reasons:
I'm lazy and it seems like it'd be hard to do well.
As I tried to say I really don't think it's exponential ... many examples of people still wanting more when they have 100m+, and while it's common to argue they just want a "higher score" even meaningless value is still value.
haha.
Got to admit I didn't think of this ... I've spoken to a lot of people who think a strict 10% minimum is required, although most usually reconsider with examples well below this.
My point was that exponents are how you make a stepwise function like you're describing. If what you're proposing is that the curve needs to be slowed, you are correct as my simple function breaks down over very large numbers. But non-exponential functions have even greater limitations working with very large numbers because they eventually just bump up against (and cross) 0.
Something like 0.9^x^(1/6) gets you a similar ~35 cents on your millionth dollar, but your billionth dollar is still worth 3 cents (my simple function produced less than the reciprocal of a googol lol.) And then you roll it up the value of the whole $3.2mm score with a sigma function like this. (Just understand that the outputs of that function aren't measured in dollars; it's some invented unit of utility. It's obviously meaningless to say $3.2mm=$1.1mm lol. Just that $3.2mm has 1.1 million times as much utility as $1. So the point is that a $3.2mm win only has 2.5 times as much utility as a $1mm win, which is only worth ~2.75 times as much as a $312, 000 score, etc.)
Adding that high of a root makes it so the function doesn't produce meaninglessly small numbers until the trillions. That makes sense to me because then you start to get into whole percentage points of the world's wealth, and literally what does it even mean to own every dollar in the world?
But you know, whatever, maybe it's 0.8^x^(1/9) or smth. I'm not an economist and I'm not here to come up with the exact function lol. I'm just saying there is some depreciation of value and that depreciation happens exponentially.
many examples of people still wanting more when they have 100m+, and while it's common to argue they just want a "higher score" even meaningless value is still value.
It makes sense from a per-dollar standpoint. Many centimillionaires wanna be billionaires, but in absolute terms someone with $100mm is closer to being a beggar on the street than they are to someone with $200.000001mm, much less a billionaire. Sure, they want more power and so forth, but a dollar (or even a million dollars) isn't going to do them a whole lot of good for getting them into the next strata.
Again, no added wealth is worthless*, just worth less.
*Until you get into GWP-level numbers. I can't even wrap my head around what money means in such a hypothetical. I'll let the macro-economics eggheads sort that one out.
In related news, nobody won Powerball on Wednesday, so
.
