The late Stu Ungar once said that he would play one instance of russian roulette (where you have a 5 in 6 chance of dying) for $10 million. This is clearly extreme, but would you do something similar?

My question to SMP is the following: For $1 billion dollars, what is the maximum amount of bullets you would put into a 6 chamber revolver, and put to your head? Note your family does not get the billion regardless of the outcome. I would also appreciate if you could provide your age with your answer. I am interested in how answers change with a persons age.

I would personally choose 3 bullets for a 50% chance at the billion. And 2 for a 33% chance at $10 million.

On a first thought on this; (Stu Ungar was suicidal anyway, look how he lived and even played at some final tables)

1% risk for 10 mil is ok with me because i probably have 1% risk to die as it is per year and i am not likely making 10 mil this coming year yet lol. However having 10 mil can dramatically modify how much time i use for more important things and might even slightly reduce that 1% per year.

I would never raise that risk more than 5% (or a level to be determined better with some better analysis) for any amount of money by the way even billions because what i am after is impossible to buy with money and still highly unlikely anyway. But it can only happen if i live long enough.

Notice this is the most selfish thing i have ever said in 2+2. Because clearly one can risk 50% for a billion and then use it to do so much good with it if lucky but i still refuse to play.

Personally I don't value money enough to put more than one bullet in, the lowest amount I'd do it for is $15mil.

Being 18 is probably why I wouldn't risk so much, still have the chance to make it without Russian roulette ;P

Thanks for the reply, and I agree about the selfishness with taking such a low %.

However, how can one trust that they will allocate the money in a way that benefits society and is not wasteful? I would be more inclined to take a higher risk to give to my loved ones, than take a higher risk to give to society. Is this selfish?

If I were 18 I would not play. Those were the days. But I'm a decade older. I don't have the need for a billion so I'll take 2 for 10 million please.

For one billion, I'm taking a bullet with one chance in a 10,000. So personally seeing 1,667 colt six-shooters, checking each one, putting one bullet in one of them, spinning it with maximum pace (whole palm+fingers), seeing the revolvers being mixed up in a transparent bulb, taking one randomly and firing.

I wouldn’t.

I also think life expectancies are higher then most people believes. To accurately determine life expectancy you have to factor in future medical improvements, while existing life figures depend on historical medical treatment from the previous few decades.

Any of you would be damn stupid to do it at all if you are considering your own personal happiness. Money, over an amount to secure the basics, doesn't buy happiness. Studies have been done...

However I think the billion dollar offer raises some other questions. A billion dollars could possibly make some kind of impact on the world if used in the right way. At some point across increasing prize it might become, to some people, socially irresponsible not to take the offer. The fact is a lot of concentrated wealth is in the hands of complete aholes. Yeah they might do things to help out in exchange for tax breaks but really, I would expect more good to be done with Mark Cuban's bankroll by the average person on the street than by him.

I won't waste too much time thinking about exactly how many billions it would take to justify 3 bullets but I'm sure there is a number for which I would run the ultimate flip. My last words, or first words before becoming a billionaire, would be "**** it I'm due".

In Russian Roulette you have a 1 in 6 chance of shooting yourself, not 5 in 6 as stated in the OP (I wouldn't be so nitty normally but OP named himself RussianRoulette so he should know how to express the odds).

With one billion I could finance one year of research of NAMI

You don't get an Einstein by putting one billions idiots thinking together.

Age 27: 0 bullets.

Wouldn't risk life for hedonistic, nor utilitarian purposes.

P.S. I think you may find that the relationship between - number of bullets - and - receiving $1B - is not moderated by age, but perhaps instead by educational-level, socio-economic status or physical attractiveness.

It would be tough to measure those on a forum however so alternatively you could consider the psychological literature on risk-aversion and risk-propensity, and their key moderators and mediators.

I can't give a sensible answer to the OP, but it seems paradoxical that the young generally live more dangerously than the old.

If you have 1 bullet and end up shooting yourself in the head and not dying, I assume you still keep the money.

Then I'll shoot so it only takes some skin away.

^ that's not the point. But there have been times where people shoot themselves in the side of the head or up their mouth and for whatever reason of luck, it doesn't kill them.

Could end up living and functionally disabled which would be worse.

Maybe the S&W Magnum could fix that "detail"?

Zero. Easy call.

What is the chance that in twenty years there will come available some life extension medical treatment with a large price tag. When for example having ten million at the right time could double your life span.

Could this possibility alter ones answer?

I think anyone really being prepared to play Russian roulette with one gun has the priorities a notch off. I wouldn't trade my life even for a bill if given only 1,000:1.

10,000:1 makes sense though, will maybe not live that many days. And in the end, you've got to have some balls.

If I really believed in that possibility (I don't) I might take the one in a thousand to get killed for even a lousy 10 mills. Not one in a hundred though.

Its not about 'balls'. Its the principle of weighing up your values and adhering to them accordingly.

One could equally argue that it takes more 'balls' to have integrity in your beliefs and values than to break that integrity for the sake of ego.

It takes balls to challenge your values and beliefs.

It takes observation to notice that 'balls' are far too loosely defined in this conversation.

Maybe so. It wasn't that seriously intended to start with. Just the point it may take some balls to overcome the fear of getting immediately killed, for a great possibility for the benefits one billion dollars can give. My line happens to go at the one-in-a-tenthousand mark. I guess. But then the one billion should be granted with 100% certainty. If there is even one possibility in a 100,000 I will not get the money if I "win", then I will not participate.

On the other hand, one billion dollars may rise the possibility you are getting kidnapped, loose control of life, etc. But keeping it secretly in a bank, living quitely, knowing you can fall back on the money if needed, donating most of it to a suitable purpose when you die, why not?

But in the real world all of this of course doesn't happen.

How many chambers before it's not an easy call?

I like the topic.. putting game theory purists to a real test ;-)

Given that I was not born a millionaire I think it's worth taking the risk when compared to rotting in an office working for someone else.. and taking into account the fact that with all that money I can help others, I think it would be worth putting my life at risk.. 7.2 billion ppl on the planet are more than enough I guess, mankind can survive w/o me..

So.... Let's gamble baby! I am cheap! 3 bullets in 6 holes for 2 millions.

I am 32

Sent from my GT-I8190 using 2+2 Forums

With this level of risk-propensity you should already be a millionaire or you're doing it wrong.

Moreover, its almost like you've given up hope and you're only 32. Saddening to see, but may explain why you'll never be a millionaire (and aren't one).