Actually, there is more. After losing $300 trying to win an Xbox, he goes home, gets the rest of his $2,300 'nest egg,' and blows that too. Let me get this right:
- He goes through his entire 'pocket change' trying to win a prize worth no more than his pocket change.
- He carries around pocket change representing 10% of his entire wealth.
- With that gone, he decides to chance more of his accumulated life savings.
- He decides to chance his entire life savings.
- His life savings are kept in his home.
- And this is the carny's fault, "It's not possible that it wasn't rigged."
"Henry's got bigger problems than that big banana."The lesson that every carny knows: "Anticipate adverse selection."
Let’s get this straight – Henry Gribbohm is a fool!
ReplyDeleteGambling is socially unproductive; the winner’s gain comes at the expense of the loser. Granted adverse selection is a situation in which one party to a transaction takes advantage of knowing more than the other party to the transaction. Seriously, what carnival likes giving out a XBOX Kinect system pricing at $150? What are the chances of spending $20.00 for 8 chances to win? With that being said, I do believe that the Carny handling the “Tubs of Fun” game rigged the outcome. He monitored Gribbohm’s playing habit and realized that he was an easy target, especially when he went home to get more money to return to play the game. Did Gribbohm get “played?” DEFINITELY! Or else the Carny would not have given him back $600.
Suzette Monteverde, Empire State College, Dr. Singh, ECO-65155X