But when you reframe it socially, taking 1A and 2B becomes rational: under 1A you don’t lose socially, under 2B you gain more money but will still have defenders at the party. All that matters in the social situation is whether you’ll meet the defender threshold.
Depends on whether it’s revealed that you lost because of a bad decision or not—if there were public lists of people who took 2B and rolled a 67, thus forfeiting all their winnings, then I think you’d be right back in the same situation. If it’s totally unknown then, yeah, that’s the same reasoning I used to take 1A and 2B internally − 1B doesn’t give me a convenient excuse to say the loss wasn’t really my fault, whereas with 2B I can rationalize that I was going to lose anyways and it therefore doesn’t feel as bad.
But when you reframe it socially, taking 1A and 2B becomes rational: under 1A you don’t lose socially, under 2B you gain more money but will still have defenders at the party. All that matters in the social situation is whether you’ll meet the defender threshold.
Depends on whether it’s revealed that you lost because of a bad decision or not—if there were public lists of people who took 2B and rolled a 67, thus forfeiting all their winnings, then I think you’d be right back in the same situation. If it’s totally unknown then, yeah, that’s the same reasoning I used to take 1A and 2B internally − 1B doesn’t give me a convenient excuse to say the loss wasn’t really my fault, whereas with 2B I can rationalize that I was going to lose anyways and it therefore doesn’t feel as bad.