And again, you don't understand the meaning of the words you sue and you use equivocation fallacies to mangle rational decision making. I sure hope you aren't responsible for making risk management decision for anyone other than yourself.Insurance has a negative expected return for the insuree. The same's true for gambling at a casino.No, that is not the definition of gambling. Neither the magnitude of the bet nor the payout is relevant - and generally 'expectation' would be a net loss.Gambling is when you pay a little amount of money with an expectation of large payout.And I'll say it again - that is inaccurate and a dangerous way to look at a core aspect of risk management. You are not gambling with the insurance company, you are paying an expense to pool risks that you cannot afford to bear on your own.Buying insurance is gambling with the insurance company, who serves as the casino because they set the odds (in their favor).And of course, once you understand the actual definition of gambling it should be clear why this is plain wrong...If you were 100% sure there was no payout, then no one would buy insurance. The fact you expect a small chance of a big payout is what makes it gambling.
Anyway, the insured wants a negative 'return' from their insurance, the gambler doesn't. If you still can't see the difference I really can't help you.
I'm not making a bet with the insurance company, I am paying them for a service (pooling risk) that I hope I never need to call on. If you are putting coins down a slot machine with the same intent than gambling is the least of your worries.
It is certainly possible that the utility one gets from playing the game justifies the costs involved. That could indeed be called an entertainment expense - and if one does that in moderation it is no more or less irrational than going to the movies.I guess someone who plays the lotto isn't gambling, it's just an "entertainment expense"?
Statistics: Posted by avalpert1 — Wed Aug 28, 2024 7:43 pm — Replies 64 — Views 5442