IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nea/journl/y2018i38p48-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Note on St. Petersburg Paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Bronshtein, E.

    (Ufa State Aviation Technical University, Ufa, Russia)

  • Fatkhiev, O.

    (Ufa State Aviation Technical University, Ufa, Russia)

Abstract

St. Petersburg paradox, formulated by N. Bernoulli in the early 18th century, led to defining the utility function (D. Bernoulli, G. Cramer) as a way to resolve the paradox and played an important role in the development of decision making theory. In the 20th century, the paradox attracted the attention of many researchers, including Nobel Prize winners P. Samuelson, R. Aumann, L. Shapley. N. Bernoulli assumed that payments grow exponentially with the coin toss number. The growth rate of payments is higher than the exponential one in the generalized St. Petersburg paradox. The utility functions of Bernoulli and Cramer don't lead to the resolution of the paradox in this case. In 1934, K. Menger showed the necessity and sufficiency of the boundedness of the utility function for resolving of the generalized St. Petersburg paradox. A brief overview of the subject matter is given, as well as the autors' approach to resolving the classical paradox, based on discounting cash flows, in which the time intervals between consecutive coin tossings play a special role. The adaptation of the proposed approach to the generalized St. Petersburg paradox is also described. The proposed approach is an alternative to the traditional based utility function. It allows to solve, in particular, the inverse problem: to find (ambiguous solution) the moments of possible payments according to the set sizes of payments, the force of interest and the price of the game.

Suggested Citation

  • Bronshtein, E. & Fatkhiev, O., 2018. "A Note on St. Petersburg Paradox," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 48-53.
    • Handle: RePEc:nea:journl:y:2018:i:38:p:48-53
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econorus.org/repec/journl/2018-38-48-53.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    2. Shapley, Lloyd S., 1977. "The St. Petersburg paradox: A con games?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 439-442, April.
    3. Szekely, Gabor J. & Richards, Donald S.t.P., 2004. "The St. Petersburg Paradox and the Crash of High-Tech Stocks in 2000," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 58, pages 225-231, August.
    4. Samuelson, Paul A, 1977. "St. Petersburg Paradoxes: Defanged, Dissected, and Historically Described," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 24-55, March.
    5. Aumann, Robert J., 1977. "The St. Petersburg paradox: A discussion of some recent comments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 443-445, April.
    6. David Durand, 1957. "Growth Stocks And The Petersburg Paradox," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 12(3), pages 348-363, September.
    7. Brito, D. L., 1975. "Becker's theory of the allocation of time and the St. Petersburg Paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 123-126, February.
    8. Christian Seidl, 2013. "The St. Petersburg Paradox at 300," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 247-264, June.
    9. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt, 2009. "On the empirical relevance of st. petersburg lotteries," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(1), pages 214-220.
    10. Ole Peters, 2010. "The time resolution of the St. Petersburg paradox," Papers 1011.4404, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2011.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James C. Cox & Eike B. Kroll & Marcel Lichters & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt, 2019. "The St. Petersburg paradox despite risk-seeking preferences: an experimental study," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 27-44, April.
    2. Daniel Muller & Tshilidzi Marwala, 2019. "Relative Net Utility and the Saint Petersburg Paradox," Papers 1910.09544, arXiv.org, revised May 2020.
    3. Christian Seidl, 2013. "The St. Petersburg Paradox at 300," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 247-264, June.
    4. Tibor Neugebauer, 2010. "Moral Impossibility in the Petersburg Paradox : A Literature Survey and Experimental Evidence," LSF Research Working Paper Series 10-14, Luxembourg School of Finance, University of Luxembourg.
    5. Eike B. Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2009. "The St. Petersburg Paradox despite risk-seeking preferences: An experimental study," FEMM Working Papers 09004, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    6. Ruggero Paladini, 2017. "Il paradosso di S. Pietroburgo, una rassegna," Public Finance Research Papers 29, Istituto di Economia e Finanza, DSGE, Sapienza University of Rome.
    7. Vivian, Robert William, 2003. "Solving Daniel Bernoulli's St Petersburg Paradox: The Paradox which is not and never was," MPRA Paper 5233, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2003.
    8. Yukalov, V.I., 2021. "A resolution of St. Petersburg paradox," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    9. Benjamin Y. Hayden & Michael L. Platt, 2009. "The mean, the median, and the St. Petersburg paradox," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(4), pages 256-272, June.
    10. Hans Haller, 2013. "On the Mixed Extension of a Strategic Game1," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 1(2), pages 163-172, December.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:4:p:256-272 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Lehmann, Daniel, 2001. "Expected Qualitative Utility Maximization," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 35(1-2), pages 54-79, April.
    13. Ulrich Schmidt & Christian Seidl, 2014. "Reconsidering the common ratio effect: the roles of compound independence, reduction, and coalescing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 323-339, October.
    14. William H. Ruckle, 1981. "The Saint Petersburg Game: An Exposition of the Classical Treatment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(4), pages 241-250, December.
    15. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2019. "Investors’ Perspective on Portfolio InsuranceExpected Utility vs Prospect Theories," Working Papers REM 2019/92, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, REM, Universidade de Lisboa.
    16. Da Silva, Sergio & Matsushita, Raul, 2016. "The St. Petersburg paradox: An experimental solution," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 445(C), pages 66-74.
    17. Assaf Eisdorfer & Carmelo Giaccotto, 2016. "The St. Petersburg paradox and capital asset pricing," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, February.
    18. Andrea Berdondini, 2019. "Resolution of the St. Petersburg paradox using Von Mises axiom of randomness," Papers 1907.11054, arXiv.org.
    19. Valerii Salov, 2015. "The Role of Time in Making Risky Decisions and the Function of Choice," Papers 1512.08792, arXiv.org.
    20. Kaivanto, Kim, 2008. "Alternation Bias and the Parameterization of Cumulative Prospect Theory," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 91-107.
    21. Jean Baccelli, 2018. "Risk attitudes in axiomatic decision theory: a conceptual perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 61-82, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    St. Petersburg paradox; discounting; Menger theorem;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nea:journl:y:2018:i:38:p:48-53. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alexey Tcharykov (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nearuea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.