A clever adversary who knows your preferences can now exploit this. They offer you a sequence of trades: pay a small amount to switch from plan-A to plan-B before the coin flip (because ex ante you prefer B in context), then after the coin lands heads, pay a small amount to switch from B to A (because ex post you prefer A in isolation). You have paid twice and ended up exactly where you started.
I feel confused by this example.
If I understand correctly, picking a more specific example.
t0: someone decides to toss a biased coin making it more likely it lands tails. If it lands heads you put 1M$ in box H. If it lands tails they put it in box T.
Adversary offers me (i) i’ll take H, free of charge; or (b) I’ll take T but I have to pay you 0.01$.
Then after the coin toss you offer me make a switch for 0.01$.
I this doesn’t sound like a money pump.
If I knew offer 2 is coming then I’m simply silly if I take the cheaper option, I’m plain throwing money away for no reason.
If I didn’t know then it seems I’m paying for options / lack of information not form making bad decissions.
I feel confused by this example.
If I understand correctly, picking a more specific example.
t0: someone decides to toss a biased coin making it more likely it lands tails. If it lands heads you put 1M$ in box H. If it lands tails they put it in box T.
Adversary offers me (i) i’ll take H, free of charge; or (b) I’ll take T but I have to pay you 0.01$.
Then after the coin toss you offer me make a switch for 0.01$.
I this doesn’t sound like a money pump.
If I knew offer 2 is coming then I’m simply silly if I take the cheaper option, I’m plain throwing money away for no reason.
If I didn’t know then it seems I’m paying for options / lack of information not form making bad decissions.
Ah. I misunderstood. I missed that the uncertainty is on a different thing