IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wap/wpaper/2014.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Toward a Resolution of the St.Petersburg Paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Mamoru Kaneko

    (Emeritus Professor, Waseda University and University of Tsukuba)

Abstract

We study the St.Petersburg paradox from the viewpoint of bounded intelligence. Following Llyod Shapley, we reformulate its coin-tossing gamble introducing a finite budget of the banker, while this is as a resolution in the narrow sense as long as the standard expected reward criterion is adopted. It is still impossible for both banker and people to participate and to generate positive profits. We introduce cognitive bounds to people to modify the expected reward criterion and show that many people are incomparable to between participation and not. This is a rationalistic though people have cognitive bounds, and we take one more step of going to semi-rationalistic behavioral-probability for incomparable alternatives. This shows that some people show positive probabilities of participation in the coin-tossing with a fee producing positive profits for the banker. The last part is formulated as a monopoly market and its activeness is shown by the Mote Carlo simulation method.

Suggested Citation

  • Mamoru Kaneko, 2020. "Toward a Resolution of the St.Petersburg Paradox," Working Papers 2014, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:wap:wpaper:2014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.waseda.jp/fpse/winpec/assets/uploads/2020/10/E2014-1_version.pdf
    File Function: First version,
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Fishburn, 1980. "A simple model for the utility of gambling," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 435-448, December.
    2. Nathan Berg & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2010. "As-if behavioral economics: neoclassical economics in disguise?," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(1), pages 133-166.
    3. Mamoru Kaneko, 2020. "Expected utility theory with probability grids and preference formation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 723-764, October.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    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. 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.
    7. Morton Davis & Michael Maschler, 1965. "The kernel of a cooperative game," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 223-259, September.
    8. Shapley, Lloyd S., 1977. "Lotteries and menus: A comment on unbounded utilities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 446-453, April.
    9. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 279-279.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:389-395 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Chance theory: A separation of riskless and risky utility," Kiel Working Papers 1874, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. 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.
    4. Christian Seidl, 2013. "The St. Petersburg Paradox at 300," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 247-264, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González, 2023. "On The Appeal Of Complexity," Working Papers 2312, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    7. 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, June.
    8. Mark Schneider, 2019. "A Bias Aggregation Theorem," Working Papers 19-03, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    9. Marek Hudik, 2019. "Two interpretations of the rational choice theory and the relevance of behavioral critique," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(4), pages 464-489, November.
    10. Andreas Ortmann & Leonidas Spiliopoulos, 2017. "The beauty of simplicity? (Simple) heuristics and the opportunities yet to be realized," Chapters, in: Morris Altman (ed.), Handbook of Behavioural Economics and Smart Decision-Making, chapter 7, pages 119-136, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Lisa L. Posey & Vickie Bajtelsmit, 2017. "Insurance and Endogenous Bankruptcy Risk: When is it Rational to Choose Gambling, Insurance, and Potential Bankruptcy?," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 15-40, March.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:4:p:256-272 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Brennan C. Platt & Joseph Price & Henry Tappen, 2013. "The Role of Risk Preferences in Pay-to-Bid Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(9), pages 2117-2134, September.
    16. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2022. "Chance theory: A separation of riskless and risky utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 1-32, August.
    17. Can Xu & Andreas Steiner & Jakob de Haan, 2023. "Does Economic Policy Uncertainty Encourage Gambling? Evidence from the Chinese Welfare Lottery Market," CESifo Working Paper Series 10241, CESifo.
    18. 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.
    19. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    20. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    21. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    22. Embrey, Matthew & Seel, Christian & Philipp Reiss, J., 2024. "Gambling in risk-taking contests: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 570-585.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    St.Petersburg Paradox; Shapley's Modification; Expected Utility Theory with Probability Grids; Cognitive Bounds; Bounded Intelligence; Incomparability; behavioralprobability; Monte Carlo Method;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wap:wpaper:2014. 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: Haruko Noguchi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spwasjp.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.