[Question] Is there any discussion on avoiding being Dutch-booked or otherwise taken advantage of one’s bounded rationality by refusing to engage?

From https://​​www.gwern.net/​​mugging:

One way to try to escape a mugging is to unilaterally declare that all probabilities below a certain small probability will be treated as zero. With the right pair of lower limit and mugger’s credibility, the mugging will not take place. But such a ad hoc method violates common axioms of probability theory, and thus we can expect there to be repercussions.

It turns out to be easy to turn such a person into a money pump, if not by the mugging itself. Suppose your friend adopts this position, and he says specifically that any probabilities less than or equal to 120 are 0. You then suggest a game; the two of you will roll a d20 die, and if the die turns up 1-19, you will pay him one penny and if the die turns up 20, he pays you one dollar—no, one bazillion dollars. Your friend then calculates: there is a 1920 chance that he will win a little money, and there is a 120 chance he will lose a lot of money—but wait, 120 is too small to matter! It is zero chance, by his rule. So, there is no way he can lose money on this game and he can only make money.

He is of course wrong, and on the 5th roll you walk away with everything he owns. (And you can do this as many times as you like.)

Of course, that’s not how a sane street-rational person would think! They would not play for “one bazillion dollars” no matter the odds. In general, detecting a sufficiently intelligent adversarial entity tends to result in avoiding the interaction altogether (if you are inured enough to Nigerian princes offering billions in an email). And yet I cannot find any LW discussion on when and if to engage and when to not engage, except in an occasional comment.