IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/inm/ormnsc/v51y2005i4p677-678.html
   My bibliography  Save this item

Back to the St. Petersburg Paradox?

Citations

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


Cited by:

  1. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2024. "A puzzle of roulette gambling," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 219-234, October.
  2. Assa, Hirbod & Zimper, Alexander, 2018. "Preferences over all random variables: Incompatibility of convexity and continuity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 71-83.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Romero-Ramírez, Erick & Venegas-Martínez, Francisco & Trejo-García, José Carlos, 2019. "Revisitando los modelos de Birnbaum-Chávez y de Diamond-Dybvig sobre corridas bancarias ¿Las corridas dependen sólo de fundamentos económicos o también de factores psicológicos?," eseconomía, Escuela Superior de Economía, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, vol. 14(50), pages 7-40, Primer se.
  6. Yukalov, V.I., 2021. "A resolution of St. Petersburg paradox," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
  7. Ido Erev & Ira Glozman & Ralph Hertwig, 2008. "What impacts the impact of rare events," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 153-177, April.
  8. Seidl, Christian, 2012. "The Petersburg Paradox: Menger revisited," Economics Working Papers 2012-04, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
  9. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2016. "Risk preferences of Australian academics: where retirement funds are invested tells the story," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 411-426, March.
  10. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
  11. Salvatore Greco & Fabio Rindone, 2014. "The bipolar Choquet integral representation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 1-29, June.
  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. Enrico Giorgi & Thorsten Hens, 2006. "Making prospect theory fit for finance," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 20(3), pages 339-360, September.
  14. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami & Jia Zhu, 2015. "Rank dependent expected utility theory explains the St. Petersburg paradox," Discussion Papers in Economics 15/22, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
  15. 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.
  16. Francesco Cesarone & Massimiliano Corradini & Lorenzo Lampariello & Jessica Riccioni, 2023. "A new behavioral model for portfolio selection using the Half-Full/Half-Empty approach," Papers 2312.10749, arXiv.org.
  17. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2016. "Probability weighting and L-moments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(1), pages 103-109.
  18. Ganna Pogrebna & Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Coordination, focal points and voting in strategic situations: a natural experiment," IEW - Working Papers 403, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
  19. 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.
  20. Marc Scholten & Daniel Read, 2014. "Prospect theory and the “forgotten” fourfold pattern of risk preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 67-83, February.
  21. Marie Pfiffelmann, 2007. "How to solve the St Petersburg Paradox in Rank-Dependent Models ?," Working Papers of LaRGE Research Center 2007-08, Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Economie (LaRGE), Université de Strasbourg.
  22. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2007:i:26:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
  23. V. I. Yukalov, 2021. "A Resolution of St. Petersburg Paradox," Papers 2111.14635, arXiv.org.
  24. David Peel & David Law, 2007. "Betting on odds on Favorites as an Optimal Choice in Cumulative Prospect Theory," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(26), pages 1-10.
  25. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2015. "Behavior in the centipede game: A decision-theoretical perspective," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 117-122.
  26. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2016. "A monotone model of intertemporal choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 62(4), pages 785-812, October.
  27. Christian Seidl, 2013. "The St. Petersburg Paradox at 300," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 247-264, June.
  28. Ghazi, Soroush & Schneider, Mark, 2024. "Market value of rarity: A theory of fair value and evidence from rare baseball cards," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 318-339.
  29. Guo, Peijun, 2019. "Focus theory of choice and its application to resolving the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes and other anomalies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1034-1043.
  30. Konstantinos Katsikopoulos & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2008. "One-reason decision-making: Modeling violations of expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 35-56, August.
  31. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:4:p:256-272 is not listed on IDEAS
  32. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2018. "An analysis of the generalized TODIM method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(3), pages 1041-1049.
  33. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
  34. Marie Pfiffelmann, 2011. "Solving the St. Petersburg Paradox in cumulative prospect theory: the right amount of probability weighting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 325-341, September.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.