When faced with tradeoffs, you should value the ones that mean you still get to make more trades. Never put that on the line.
What about this: you can press button A or button B. If you press button A, you get a million dollars but then have to sit out round two. In button B, you play a game of chess against someone and the winner gets $10. Surely you should press A?
The heuristic you’ve described is probably good in a lot of situations but it’s definitely not universally applicable.
This is only temporary, and although I would obviously click A, I can’t help but wonder what “round two” might involve, in this game where millions of dollars are casually being handed out.
And more importantly, I would argue that once you’ve made a million dollars off a game you have for all intents and purposes won because now you have enormous resources to leverage in the real world, the one that matters. So the cost of losing (limited) game-leverage is fine, because you have gained so much in the game you actually care about.
What about this: you can press button A or button B. If you press button A, you get a million dollars but then have to sit out round two. In button B, you play a game of chess against someone and the winner gets $10. Surely you should press A?
The heuristic you’ve described is probably good in a lot of situations but it’s definitely not universally applicable.
This is only temporary, and although I would obviously click A, I can’t help but wonder what “round two” might involve, in this game where millions of dollars are casually being handed out.
And more importantly, I would argue that once you’ve made a million dollars off a game you have for all intents and purposes won because now you have enormous resources to leverage in the real world, the one that matters. So the cost of losing (limited) game-leverage is fine, because you have gained so much in the game you actually care about.