# Would you take a 90/10 risk on your life for $10 million (insert currency here)



## action9000 (Jun 15, 2013)

pernoctator said:


> Oh, so the money is counterfeit? Now I'm definitely out.


The money isn't part of the game. It is given out _after_ the game as a reward for surviving the entirety of the game, therefore it is not part of my "nothing is real" statement.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

pernoctator said:


> Of _course_ people choose the "unlikely" one out of fear, but not an irrational fear, because it's high risk and _not_ actually that unlikely. When people are afraid to fly on planes, that's an irrational fear. But if _one in every ten_ planes actually did crash, it would be a rational fear... and that's what we're dealing with here.
> 
> The "dying is guaranteed" argument is absurd and could be applied to any bet: why not put X money toward a chance of winning X thousand, because you are guaranteed to lose X upon death anyway. The "guarantee" you should be considering here is the 99.9% chance that you will continue to live for the next several decades versus the 90% chance of winning the money. Betting on the 90 is the foolish choice.


I disagree I think the two are more balanced than it seems to you. But it may over zealous to say it's completely irrational.


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

action9000 said:


> The money isn't part of the game. It is given out _after_ the game as a reward for surviving the entirety of the game, therefore it is not part of my "nothing is real" statement.


You said there is no host, so who gives out the money? If the money wasn't willingly transferred from one human being to another, it can't legally be accepted.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Hmmm depends. Right now, everyone in my life is fine, so the risk is:

Risk if I take it (10%*The value of my life) vs Risk if I don't take it (0.9*The Value of $10,000,000)
And, to me, my life is worth more than any amount of money, so I'm going to say no.

But, if someone I loved was dying and the only way to save them is with some amount of money that is impossible for me to obtain any other way and less than $10,000,000. Then the risk is:
If I do take it: 0.1*The value of my life
vs
If I don't take it: The certain death of someone I care about (0.9*The value of their life)
Then I would certainly take the risk. The odds would be in my favor as well.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

action9000 said:


> The game is for $10 million, not $10. Does that change anything?


Nope, gotta have side bets & no more than 3 attempts unless you increase the risk.


----------



## gooseNmixes (Oct 8, 2014)

Yeah id do it once and hope to run at EV, given the chance variance doesn't go my way id need a guarantee the money would go to immediate family though. If not, than it would be hard to justify doing at 10:1 on my life.


----------



## Im FiNe (Oct 17, 2013)

action9000 said:


> Ah ha.
> 
> I never specified that this game has a "host" or a "murderer". The game is simply an entity that exists in the world, emerging from the nothingness. There is nothing man-made about this device. It is not contraption, it is merely a game, from the ether, accepting volunteers.
> 
> In this context, is the concept of murder still applicable? I don't feel it is...


Well, you have listed an existing entity that acts and reacts in a seemingly willful manner, with intention. The question to determine if the entity is a murderer would be, "Is the entity God or not-God?"

If you ask us to lay aside some rationality (suspend disbelief as it were), and have the scenario be a natural occurrence, then the scenario is quite similar to, "Would you kill yourself if your family received a cash compensation?" That sounds like life insurance. Some people have killed themselves for such a reason.

Then it boils down the question even further to plainly, "Do you think that your death would serve to make things better for others in your life? Is the world better with you in it or with your absence?"


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

No, I wouldn't.
The time spent with my girlfriend is too precious to risk for any amount of money.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

No, wouldn't do it. If the odds of dying were substantially smaller, I might consider it.


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

Before $10M, After $10
Quality of life before= 9/10
Quality of life after = 10/10

Change in quality = +1/10
or -9/10 (death)

+1 * 10% = 0.1
-9 * 90% = -8.1
It's not a good bet

I'd need odds of 1 in 81 chance of death


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Thomas60 said:


> Before $10M, After $10
> Quality of life before= 9/10
> Quality of life after = 10/10
> 
> ...


Hmmm if you are looking at the expected outcome, wouldn't you compare:
+1 * 90% chance of winning = 0.9
-9 * 10% chance of losing = -0.9

So the expected value would be 0 (no gain, no loss) :tongue:


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Hmmm if you are looking at the expected outcome, wouldn't you compare:
> +1 * 90% chance of winning = 0.9
> -9 * 10% chance of losing = -0.9
> 
> So the expected value would be 0 (no gain, no loss) :tongue:


Ah you are right *bonks self on the head*


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Hmmm if you are looking at the expected outcome, wouldn't you compare:
> +1 * 90% chance of winning = 0.9
> -9 * 10% chance of losing = -0.9
> 
> So the expected value would be 0 (no gain, no loss) :tongue:


It's been shown that so long as a person has enough money to meet their basic needs any additional money has almost no long-term effect on their happiness (there is a spike, but it quickly returns to normal). Assuming that most people here live in first world countries where they have all of their basic needs met (and if not then how are you online?) I would have to say that this would be a terrible choice for almost everyone here. Even if you are depressed and think the money will make life better the odds are very high that you're wrong. Money won't solve your depression, it's a lot deeper than that. The payoff for "winning" in this sort of lottery is almost zero no matter what the amount of money that can be won is and so the expected value calculation would almost never favor taking such a risk unless the chances of losing are so incredibly low that even that transient boost in happiness would offset the risk. If someone is really looking to take a risk to improve their situation then I would say risking a little embarrassment to ask that cute girl/guy out that you know would likely have a lot better expected value (and a lot less risk) than something like this.


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

i'd rather just stay alive and get my millions how i will anyway...

10 mil isn't enough for me to risk my life. 10 mil is chump change. 

make it 1 trillion...i'd talk then. what does 10 mil get you? a second rate mansion in the middle of nowhere and a couple fancy cars? people have that without ever having to risk their lives. 10 mil is scrap.


----------



## MsBossyPants (Oct 5, 2011)

This set-up sounds like it could be an episode of the old tv show, Twilight Zone:
Man has a job, food, roof over his head, better than most, but longs for wealth. Thinks it will make him happy. Man takes bet, wins money. Looks forward to living the Good Life, thinks all his dreams have come true. The next day, buys expensive clothes, limousine with driver, arrives at exclusive restaurant with a jewel-bedecked beautiful woman on his arm. People stop and stare. (Wow. Who is that man, he must be important.) Orders most expensive wine and entree. Chokes on it and dies. 

(cue the voice-over that tells you that wealth isn't a guarantee of long-life or happiness)

This isn't really about how much money you'd win, or what the odds are that you'd die trying to achieve it. 
It's about what you truly value and whether or not you think money can buy it. :wink:


tl;dr: no, thanks. I'm good.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Existential Justice Warrior said:


> Yes. The money wouldn't even matter there, it'd be a matter of pride. :laughing:


I'm curious how this is a matter of pride?


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

God's always provided me with everything I've ever needed; in fact, I almost couldn't go off to college because of money, and I'm not really sure how I'm going to be able to afford college next semester, but He provided the money to get me here, as been done forever.

So I'd rather not give my life for something like that, not when God's in the market of giving gifts, from salvation, all the way down to something as simple as cash.


----------



## haephestia (May 13, 2013)

It'd depend on my quality of life. At this point I have no want or need for more money, I find it overcomplicates things too much. To be honest I know many wealthy people and they seem even unhappier than most of the people I've served at soup kitchens. If I was imminently dying or extremely depressed or alone, unaccomplished in anything? I might do it. Even then I'd likely give most of the money away. 

When your 'dream car' is a Civic, $10mil just seems like a hassle X3


----------



## Uralian Hamster (May 13, 2011)

No. I do like to take risks, the key word being plural in this case. If I have the...let's call it courage, to do this, then what's stopping me from attempting something even more risky, where the outcome doesn't prevent me from reattempting it? 
So that's a no for me. I'd rather put it all on black every payday.


----------



## TwinAnthos (Aug 11, 2014)

If I was dying in a way or I needed the millions to save someone I care for, like my family, then I guess I'll just hope the odds are with me. Otherwise? No.


----------



## euphorie (May 21, 2014)

I know I'm not going to make any sense but what use does money have for a dead man? I don't think that amount of money will increase my livelihood. Yes, you can buy more stuff and things you could never have been able to afford but if you took the risk just so you could acquire more stuff, you'll only ever end up with more things. Even if I do win, money doesn't guarantee happiness. Immense wealth leads to great losses. No one ever mentioned the $10 million being obtained legally.


----------



## foodcourtfrenzy (Aug 14, 2014)

Yes, I'm not afraid of death. And the prospect of being able to live free without the burdens of financial pressure and spending 50 hours a week behind a desk? This is an easy decision for me, especially because the death is immediate and I would have no idea. Big deal, I'll play right now. I love life, but I won't miss it if I'm dead. I'll just be in the same place I'm destined to go, just sooner than I hoped.


----------



## Killbain (Jan 5, 2012)

No. Don't need the money!


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

I would play, then go play roulette at the casino and put it all on 23!


----------



## Serenade (Sep 9, 2014)

I value life more than money... 

but if I was going to die soon anyway I'd do it! Live life like a millionaire before I kick the bucket (and before I kick the bucket I'll complete that dusty ol' bucket list!)


----------



## AndyFP (Aug 31, 2014)

I'd say yes if I really needed the money, though I don't at the moment. 

I don't care so much about dying, but a 90% chance of death really isn't worth a bit of material gain.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

AndyFP said:


> I'd say yes if I really needed the money, though I don't at the moment.
> 
> I don't care so much about dying, but a 90% chance of death really isn't worth a bit of material gain.


 The OP wrote

"The concept is simple: It's a game. If you play, you need to pick a random number from 1-10. If you guess the one "wrong" number, you die instantly and painlessly. If you guess any of the 9 "safe" numbers, you win $10 million.

Do you play?"


With a 9/10 chance of survival, I'd do it just for the fun of it. I've been lucky most of my life so I'd do it a second time for the money & a third just to say I could LOL.


----------



## Azeventura (Jul 6, 2013)

put it like this: 

my life is not worth any more than any other human beeing.

with those 10 mills i could probably build a couple of schools and making sure that a village gets proper needs fulfilled.

in infinity i would probably have prevented thousands of deaths.

so yes, i would probably have played it a couple of times with such good odds.


----------



## Strostkovy (Jun 1, 2014)

I thought it was a 90% chance you would die and I was still thinking yes. Life isn't that great anyway. Can I play twice?


----------



## capuccino (Mar 16, 2014)

eh, sure. sounds fun, and I'm curious. don't judge.

the only thing that might hold me back is if I'm responsible for a dependent. then, I wouldn't risk my life unless it's absolutely necessary.


----------



## Con fused (Jun 29, 2014)

Yeah I'm game


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

I don't really want to be alive, but to sustain my unwanted life, I do need a lot of money in a big way, fast. And it's not forthcoming.

This game is the perfect solution to my problems. *accepts*


----------



## moske (Oct 10, 2014)

Not for now. I don't want 10 million dollars and my life is all I have. So why would I risk all I have for something I don't even want?

There are circumstances in which I would accept though. Think I'm dying and money would save me.


----------



## Turlowe (Aug 4, 2014)

There are things I would and have risked my life for, I wouldn't risk it for money though.


----------



## EMWUZX (Oct 2, 2014)

Ha, no!
I only get 1 life. Compare that to 10 million dollars, which, with some serious luck and some solid strategy, I could get many times over. No amount of luck or strategy will gain me a green mushroom.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

No, I have more chances of dying.


----------



## Ferin (Sep 30, 2014)

If I could save someone I loved with that money, I would do it without skipping a beat, pun most totally intended.

Otherwise at this time, I think it would be pretty selfish to assume that everyone else in my life would be okay with me dying because I was incredibly full of greed. Most people answering here don't seem to take into consideration of "how much is your life worth to everyone else who loves you?" My friends would smack me across the head and take that money if they knew how dumb I was to get it. My cats would be very sad. Maybe. I am still young and have way too many dreams and love food way too much to die.

This is the most opportune moment I have come across though where someone could say...F it YOLO! More power to you haha.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

Why would I risk losing my life especially since I believe that there's nothing afterwards?


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

I like to think that I would,but I'm not sure what I'd choose if someone actually gave me that offer.


----------



## ZaneCross (Oct 5, 2014)

I do need money to finish my plans for world domination. If I could ever find my plans for world domination.

But in all seriousness, yes. The odds are more in my favor than most games like this, usually it's 50/50.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

lawsfallmute said:


> Poverty exists for the same reason that wealth exists - they're both merely descriptors of monetary (in this instance anyways) status. The duality of rich and poor rely on one another for existence, otherwise we would all be even-keel.
> In practical applications, much of poverty exists because of residual European colonialism. The details of that, well, I'd rather not get into because I'd be typing for the next few hours.


I'm aware of that, I'm talking more on a social level, the human factors that caused these things to be (for example colonialism, I mean the reasons for colonialism, etc.).



lawsfallmute said:


> And what?! Something that is (deemed by the majority to be) selfish is of course inherent to our nature! Good or bad, everything we do is inherent to our human nature. I don't think the human species would be able to survive without at least subconcious selfishness.


If you're saying everything we do is inherent to our nature, that's fine, in that case I'll rephrase it in terms of whether something is fundamental and core to human nature, or whether it's more abstract and dependant on outside factors. Caring for each other (among other things) is at the core of our nature, we certainly wouldn't have survived as a species without the instinct of caring for the family/tribe, looking after children, sharing, etc. (and that's a common trait in mammals, to various extents). Selfishness I see as behind layers of abstraction, it's something that's derived, a response to unfavourable external factors. It's deeply rooted, don't get me wrong, but selfishness has always been a downfall, as evidenced by all the people living in poverty.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Then why do we take chances on death during our lives? This reminds me of the woman who says she wouldn't prostitute herself for anything yet later gets married.


----------



## Iris186000 (Sep 23, 2014)

I had to think a bit on this, but, in the end, right now, I have to say "no" for the same reason that a lot of people make other decisions that reduce the chance of them dying every day. It's life that's worth fighting for, not always endless amounts of money, and the odds aren't in my favor in this case. Then again, if things got bad enough in life, I could definitely imagine myself changing my mind and guessing a number.

So, I guess my present answer speaks positively of my life, so far.


----------



## marbleous (Feb 21, 2014)

It would be interesting to see what people would choose if instead of dying instantly, you would die painlessly exactly 5 years later (unless another event takes you first).


----------



## RochiDidItAgain (Aug 20, 2013)

Absolute yes. I love a challenge for one. Two, the odds of death are pretty low. Three, instant death. You won't even know you're dead!! 

I'd just have to make sure to write down a letter for my family and friends so they know that I wasn't sad if I die. Let em know how stupid I really am. Then they can just shake their heads like, "Hehe, this idiot..."


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

emberfly said:


> I'm in game theory right now  Fun class. Hard as shit class. But fun.
> 
> If I wanted to play logically, I would be required to say no.
> 
> ...


Game theory eh? Have you read about the prisoner's dilemma yet? 

Anyway, monetary value aside, if this were for lets say world peace or something - I would do it. But 10 million dollars no.


----------



## multiple perceptions (Oct 25, 2014)

action9000 said:


> The concept is simple: It's a game. If you play, you need to pick a random number from 1-10. If you guess the one "wrong" number, you die instantly and painlessly. If you guess any of the 9 "safe" numbers, you win $10 million.
> 
> Do you play?




Absolutely Not, even if the prize were $10 Billion, or any amount for that matter. Not even if I were a cat.


----------



## reveur (Oct 26, 2014)

I wouldn't do it. I'm too serious for gambling my life away. I finally realized that it has an unique value (it took me some time). Plus: money doesn't delight me. I simply don't care about it. I'm spending only the amount that makes it possible to live a normal life.

The only reason why I'd put my life on bet is that there would be someone else's life at stake already.


----------

