CQUniversity
Browse

High-stakes hedges are misunderstood too. A commentary on: “Valuing bets and hedges: Implications for the construct of risk preference”

Download (66.61 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2022-05-18, 01:41 authored by Philip Newall, Dominic Cortis
Frederick, Levis, Malliaris & Meyer (2018) report a package of laboratory studies where participants underestimate the value of “hedges”: Risky bets which cancel out the risk of another presently-held bet. However, it might be questioned to what extent laboratory findings predict field behavior. People might better understand hedges when more money is at stake, or when they have more time to reflect. We discuss three gamblers who, instead of hedging, used a costly “cash-out” option to eliminate the risk of their bets on Leicester FC’s improbable victory in the 2015/2016 English Premier League soccer season. The decision to cash-out rather than to hedge led to individual losses of up to £8,000, and did not seem plausibly explained by rational economic factors. High-stakes hedges are misunderstood too.

History

Volume

14

Issue

5

Start Page

605

End Page

607

Number of Pages

3

eISSN

1930-2975

ISSN

1930-2975

Publisher

Society for Judgment and Decision Making

Additional Rights

CC BY 3.0

Peer Reviewed

  • Yes

Open Access

  • Yes

External Author Affiliations

University of Malta

Era Eligible

  • Yes

Journal

Judgment and Decision Making

Usage metrics

    CQUniversity

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC