IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v29y2004i3p241-259.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Utility of Gambling Reconsidered

Author

Listed:
  • Enrico Diecidue
  • Ulrich Schmidt
  • Peter P. Wakker

    ()

Abstract

The utility of gambling, which entails an intrinsic utility or disutility of risk, has been alluded to in the economics literature for over a century. This paper demonstrates that any utility of gambling almost unavoidably implies a violation of fundamental rationality properties, such as transitivity or stochastic dominance, for static choices between gambles. This result may explain why the utility of gambling, a phenomenon so widely discussed, has never been formalized in the economics literature. The model of this paper accommodates well-known deviations from expected utility, such as the Allais paradox and the coexistence of gambling and insurance, while minimally deviating from expected utility.

Suggested Citation

  • Enrico Diecidue & Ulrich Schmidt & Peter P. Wakker, 2004. "The Utility of Gambling Reconsidered," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 241-259, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:29:y:2004:i:3:p:241-259
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew Rabin & Georg Weizsacker, 2009. "Narrow Bracketing and Dominated Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1508-1543, September.
    2. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3333-3356, December.
    3. George E. Newman & Daniel Mochon, 2012. "Why are lotteries valued less? Multiple tests of a direct risk-aversion mechanism," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(1), pages 19-24, January.
    4. R. Luce & C. Ng & A. Marley & János Aczél, 2008. "Utility of gambling II: risk, paradoxes, and data," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 36(2), pages 165-187, August.
    5. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    6. R. Luce & C. Ng & A. Marley & János Aczél, 2008. "Utility of gambling I: entropy modified linear weighted utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 36(1), pages 1-33, July.
    7. Lisa L. Posey & Vickie Bajtelsmit, 2017. "Insurance and Endogenous Bankruptcy Risk: When is it Rational to Choose Gambling, Insurance, and Potential Bankruptcy?," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 15-40, March.
    8. Sebastian Lehmann, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the BDM: Predictive Validity, Gambling Effects, and Risk Attitude," FEMM Working Papers 150001, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    9. Dwenger, Nadja & Kübler, Dorothea & Weizsäcker, Georg, 2014. "Flipping a coin: Theory and evidence," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2013-201r, Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB).
    10. Mohlin, Erik & Östling, Robert & Wang, Joseph Tao-yi, 2015. "Lowest unique bid auctions with population uncertainty," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 53-57.
    11. Yutaka Matsushita, 2012. "Certainty Equivalent Representation of Binary Gambles That Are Decomposed into Risky and Sure Parts," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 2, pages 65-75, May.
    12. repec:eee:soceco:v:73:y:2018:i:c:p:99-115 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2010. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences: Discounted Expected Utility with a Disproportionate Preference for Certainty," NBER Working Papers 16348, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Dorian Jullien, 2013. "Asian Disease-type of Framing of Outcomes as an Historical Curiosity," GREDEG Working Papers 2013-47, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), University of Nice Sophia Antipolis.
    15. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2006. "A New Type of Preference Reversal," Working Papers 06.18, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    16. Brennan C. Platt & Joseph Price & Henry Tappen, 2010. "Pay-to-Bid Auctions," NBER Working Papers 15695, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Alessandro Innocenti & Tommaso Nannicini & Roberto Ricciuti, 2012. "The Importance of Betting Early," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 037, University of Siena.
    18. Lionel Page & Robert T. Clemen, 2013. "Do Prediction Markets Produce Well‐Calibrated Probability Forecasts?-super-," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(568), pages 491-513, May.
    19. Zuzanna Halicka & Michał Krawczyk, 2014. "Happy-go-lucky. Positive emotions boost demand for lotto," Working Papers 2014-09, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    20. Uri Gneezy & John A. List & George Wu, 2006. "The Uncertainty Effect: When a Risky Prospect is Valued Less than its Worst Possible Outcome," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 121(4), pages 1283-1309.
    21. Ferdinand Vieider, 2016. "Certainty Preference, Random Choice, and Loss Aversion: A Comment on "Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan"," Economics & Management Discussion Papers em-dp2016-06, Henley Business School, Reading University.
    22. repec:eee:eecrev:v:102:y:2018:i:c:p:62-81 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Michael Callen & Mohammad Isaqzadeh & James D. Long & Charles Sprenger, 2014. "Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(1), pages 123-148, January.
    24. Benjamin Y. Hayden & Sarah R. Heilbronner & Amrita C. Nair & Michael L. Platt, 2008. "Cognitive influences on risk-seeking by rhesus macaques," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 389-395, June.
    25. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto Prades, 2009. "New evidence of preference reversals in health utility measurement," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(6), pages 713-726.

    More about this item

    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:kap:jrisku:v:29:y:2004:i:3:p:241-259. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.