The Magic Economics of Gambling - YouTube

Channel: Wendover Productions

[1]
This video was made possible by Squarespace.
[3]
Build your beautiful website for 10% off at squarespace.com/Wendover.
[8]
According to conventional economic rules, casinos shouldn’t be able to exist.
[13]
That’s because conventional economic rules assume humans are rational.
[18]
Conventional economic rules would predict that, if someone offered you a deal where
[21]
you gave them $100 and they gave you $94.80 back you wouldn’t take that deal but for
[26]
some strange reason, perfectly intelligent people head to the roulette table every day
[31]
and, in essence, take that exact deal.
[35]
Just look: an American roulette table has 38 numbers on it—double-zero, zero, and
[40]
one through thirty-six.
[41]
The best odds on the table are in the red, black, even, and odd boxes.
[45]
If you put a $5 chip in the red box, for example, and the ball falls on a red number you double
[50]
your money, you gain $5, but of course the ball can fall on zero or double zero which
[55]
are neither red nor black and, for these purposes, neither even nor odd.
[59]
Now, if the zero and double zero didn’t exist then playing roulette would make perfect
[63]
sense.
[64]
If you came in with $100 and played infinite times you would leave with $100 because it
[68]
would be a 50% chance of doubling your money each time.
[71]
In reality, because of those zeroes, the odds of doubling your money are actually 47.4%.
[77]
That means that for every dollar you play you can expect to lose 5.2 cents but for some
[82]
reason people still do it while this small gap in between fair odds and the odds casinos
[88]
and other gambling institutions offer earn them worldwide close to half a trillion dollars
[92]
per year.
[94]
But consider this.
[95]
For the same reason gambling shouldn’t work insurance also shouldn’t.
[99]
Insurance is essentially the exact opposite of gambling.
[102]
Insurance companies are basically gambling companies but the roles are flipped—the
[106]
insurance companies are the gamblers and you’re the casino.
[109]
If you pay a car insurance company, for example, $1,500 a year to insure your vehicle they’re
[114]
gambling that you’re not going to cause more than $1,500 in coverable damage in any
[118]
one year but of course it takes money to run the insurance company so they need a margin.
[123]
MetLife, one of the world’s largest insurance companies, for example, takes in $37.2 billion
[128]
from the people who hold insurance policies with them but then pay back in insurance claims
[132]
just $36.35 billion.
[135]
Of course there are other sources of revenue and other expenses at MetLife but just looking
[139]
at the balance between what comes in and what goes out for insurance the odds are pretty
[143]
decent compared to the roulette wheel.
[145]
For every dollar you give them you can expect to get about 97.7 cents back but that’s
[150]
still that’s losing money.
[152]
According to the same conventional economic rules that say that casinos shouldn’t be
[155]
able exist insurance companies too just shouldn’t work as a concept because people get back
[160]
less than they put in but here’s why they do.
[163]
Just consider this: would you rather, with 100% certainty, receive $5 or would you rather
[169]
have an 80% chance of receiving $6.25.
[173]
Feel free to think about it for a second but chances are that you said you’d rather have
[177]
that sure $5.
[179]
When surveyed with this question over three quarters of respondents said that they wanted
[183]
the certain $5 over the 80% chance of $6.25.
[187]
But here’s the strange thing: these two options are worth the exact same amount.
[193]
If you took the 80% gamble infinite times you would receive an average of $5 each time
[198]
as 80% of $6.25 is $5.
[201]
Therefore, in theory, people should have no preference between these two options because
[206]
they’re worth the exact same amount.
[209]
But here’s the thing: people, in general, dislike losing a given amount of money more
[215]
than they like winning it.
[217]
That is, the negative effect of losing $5, for example, is greater than the positive
[222]
effect of winning $5.
[225]
Because the second option comes with the chance of loss, which is a negative experience more
[229]
powerful than the positive experience of certainly gaining $5, this option is worth less overall
[234]
even if it’s worth the same in a dollar amount.
[237]
This is why insurance works.
[240]
Insurance is a worthwhile gamble for the insurance company since the odds are in their favor
[243]
and they make money while the gamble is worth it for you because the monetary amount you
[247]
get back plus the absence of monetary loss makes the deal worth more than the money you
[251]
put in overall.
[252]
Of course it is a bit more complicated than this since insurance companies often have
[255]
preferential rates for healthcare and it helps smooth out economic shocks so, despite being
[260]
a gamble, it is absolutely worth it in most cases but insurance, at it’s most basic
[264]
level, is loosing to avoid loss.
[267]
This principle of hating losing can be used to make the same amount of money worth more.
[273]
In one experiment 150 teachers in Chicago Heights were split up into three groups.
[278]
One group received nothing, one was told that they would receive a bonus at the end of the
[281]
year corresponding to how well the students test scores were, and the third group was
[285]
given the exact same deal for a bonus with the only difference being that they were given
[289]
the bonus payment upfront at the beginning of the year and told that they would have
[292]
to pay back the corresponding amount if their students did not score the test scores necessary.
[297]
The group that was promised the bonus if test scores improved performed largely the same
[301]
as the group offered no bonus but, the group given the bonus up-front overall performed
[305]
much better with test scores improving up to 3 times as much as the traditional bonus
[310]
group.
[311]
It’s clear that the fear of loss is far more powerful than the promise of gain so
[315]
this explains why insurance works but, for this same reason, gambling still shouldn’t
[320]
work but something interesting starts changing when you change the odds.
[324]
Now, remember that three quarters of people preferred a sure $5 to an 80% chance of $6.25
[330]
but now think whether you’d prefer an 100% chance of receiving $5 or a 25% chance of
[336]
winning $20.
[337]
Once again the options are worth the exact same amount since 25% of $20 is $5 but, with
[344]
this change in the odds, those surveyed on average had no preference between the two
[348]
options.
[349]
Half preferred the sure $5 and the other half preferred a 25% chance of $20.
[354]
But let’s change the odds again.
[357]
Would you prefer an 100% chance of receiving $5 or a 0.5% chance of winning $1,000.
[364]
Still with these numbers 0.5% of $1,000 is $5 so the two options are worth the exact
[369]
same amount but, with these options, for the first time people prefer the gamble.
[374]
Only 36% of respondents said they would take the $5 while 64% preferred the half percent
[380]
chance of winning $1,000.
[382]
What we’ve begun to understand is that humans like low-probability risk.
[388]
We like a small chance of winning big over a certain gain.
[391]
In fact, you can see this at the racetrack.
[394]
The best horse might have 2/1 odds where you get $3 if they win for each dollar you bet
[399]
while the bottom might have 200/1 odds where you get $300 if they win for each dollar you
[404]
bet but, as it turns out, on average, the chance of the top horse winning is actually
[408]
better than 2/1 and the chance of the bottom horse winning is worse than 200/1 because
[413]
people prefer betting on the underdog which inflates the odds.
[417]
You could therefore make more money betting on the horse that’s likeliest to win.
[421]
Crunching the betting data from 8,000 tennis matches it was found that the bets on the
[425]
best athletes with the best odds actually made money on average with 103% of the money
[430]
won back while the bets on the worst athletes with the worst odds won just 81% of the money
[436]
back.
[437]
Evidence for this phenomenon has been found time and time again but the question of why
[440]
we do it is tougher.
[442]
The simple answer for why this is is that people overweight the impact and chances of
[446]
extremely low-probability events.
[449]
This has been used to explain why people are so afraid of terrorism and plane crashes despite
[454]
the chances of dying of either being monumentally small.
[456]
It really doesn’t matter if you know that the odds are not in your favor like with the
[460]
lottery or in the casino.
[462]
People still love risk if it comes with large returns and this is why gambling works as
[467]
a concept.
[468]
Everyone just has some arbitrary point where, given two options with the same value, they’ll
[473]
start accepting the risk over the sure money.
[475]
What that means is that in a gambling transaction with someone who bets and someone who accepts
[479]
the bet both parties actually find what they’re doing worthwhile.
[483]
The casino finds what they do worthwhile because they make money while the bettor finds what
[487]
they’re doing worthwhile because they have the possibility of winning lots of money.
[491]
Now, the explanation for why people prefer these low-probability bets moves further away
[495]
from economics into psychology but one explanation with the lottery, for example, is that a bet
[500]
doubling one’s money does little to change one’s quality of life but, a bet multiplying
[504]
a person’s money by a factor of thousands can be truly life-changing so people are betting
[509]
for monumental change rather than for another cup of coffee.
[513]
To summarize, what this all means that a 5% chance of $100 is worth more to most people
[518]
than $5 despite both having a monetary value of $5.
[522]
Therefore, by offering gambles people can make money more powerful.
[527]
Almost everywhere in the world there is an issue of low-savings rates: people don’t
[531]
put enough money into banks.
[533]
About half of Americans could not immediately come up with $2,000 if an unexpected expense
[538]
came up according to one survey.
[540]
A big reason for this lack of savings is that banks are not incentivizing enough.
[545]
With how tiny savings accounts' interest rates are many people just don’t see a reason
[549]
to put their money in banks and banks are unwilling or financially can’t increase
[553]
their interest rates so how do you make the same amount of money go further?
[557]
You turn it into a gamble.
[558]
Economists created a concept for what’s called a “prize-linked savings account.”
[563]
A normal savings account with $2,000 in it at a bank that offered 1% annual interest
[567]
would earn $20 a year but, with a prize-linked savings account, instead of being given the
[573]
$20 in interest it would be entered into a gamble with, for example, a 0.4% chance of
[578]
winning $5,000.
[580]
As always that gamble is still worth $20 monetarily but to the gambler it’s worth more.
[586]
These prize-linked savings accounts have been incredibly successful so far at getting people
[590]
to save.
[591]
In Michigan’s trial of the system 56% of those using it were first time savers.
[596]
These same principles are the ones that make lotteries work.
[599]
In fact, lotteries are just such easy ways of making money that in many countries privately
[604]
runs lotteries are illegal.
[605]
In the US, for example, all lotteries have to be state-run and their profits usually
[609]
go to funding education.
[611]
Because the states are guaranteed to make money from the lottery it is essentially a
[615]
form of taxation.
[616]
In fact, all forms of gambling are set up in a way that they’re guaranteed to make
[620]
money for whoever’s running them.
[622]
In a casino, at the racetrack, or with any form of gambling it’s never a good deal
[627]
for the bettor but, the reason why people engage in these deals is a fascinating study
[632]
of behavioral economics and its principles, if applied correctly, can sometimes, just
[636]
maybe be used for good.
[638]
What’s always a good deal, though, is Squarespace.
[641]
That’s because if you’re running any sort of business your first impression counts immensely
[645]
and Squarespace helps you build the perfect first impression.
[648]
No matter how small your business is it’s absolutely crucial to have a website but of
[652]
course it’s expensive to hire someone to create one and complicated to code one yourself.
[657]
Squarespace makes it all easy with customizable designer templates, an easy to use website
[660]
builder, 24/7 award-winning customer support, and reasonable prices.
[664]
The websites can have plenty of features like a blog, video pages, an online store, and
[669]
more.
[670]
You can try Squarespace out for free at squarespace.com/Wendover and then, when you’re ready to launch you
[675]
can use the code “Wendover” for 10% off your first website or domain purchase.