http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

Let me just say that self insurance in general is not something that never happens. I have dealt with companies that part self insure for disability benefits. Having said that if this guy is doing this at his multimillion dollar home and given his reckless (awesome) lifestyle then he is truly an idiot. Insurance on your home is not just for when you throw porn stars from the roof but also in more regular instances such as a fire etc. I'll give you a scenario:

Bilzerian invited a bunch of porn stars etc over to his house. They all get high on alcahol cocaine etc supplied by Bilzerian. While lighting her joint one of the porn stars lights a curtain on fire that causes a house fire. The house burns down as does the next door house as a result of the flames from this. Two people are trapped inside and perish. What's are the damages? How much of this does he have on hand because it needs to be paid fortwith.

He has home insurance. If he didn't before he does now since his lawyer told him wrf are u doing following this incident.

Your comment about the whales is interesting. Just because someone is worth a certain amount of money on paper does not mean they have the funds to pay out any amount fortwith as would be required following a court order. What you will find is that people who are extremely wealthy will generally do the opposite of what you are saying in that instead of being underinsured they are more likely to be over insured. Wealthy people have spent their lives getting wealthy and there is no guarantee they can do it again or as fast. Why on earth would they risk all that for a small amout which depending on where you live may be tax deductable atleast in part.

The "self insure" folks could be right about homeowner's insurance (assuming where he lives doesn't require that you have it like many states do), but someone with Dan's wealth and, shall we say, "unorthodox" lifestyle would be an absolute fool to not have a large umbrella liability policy in place. Whether you can withstand a multi-million dollar judgment or not is not relevant; it has more to do with the fact that the cost of protection is so small. Someone like Dan, given his public persona, has to be a target for all kinds of potential litigation. Similar to having an attorney, insurance is just one of those "costs" of being wealthy that is a necessary evil (unless you want to risk the chance of not being wealthy someday).

Lots of folks with zero understanding of how insurance (or court judgments) work. As I mentioned, even if he has insurance, there is DEFINITELY a chance he has opted not to utilize it in this case. There's nothing requiring an insurance company to step in if you don't want them to. This is definitely a case where the damages are going to be small, and knowing Bilzerian's attitude and the ridiculousness of this case, there's a GREAT chance he's just saying "**** you, I'll pay 500k in attorney fees rather than pay you a dime."

One thing is clear: the insurance company isn't defending at the moment. Doubt Tom Goldstein does insurance defense for State Farm/Farmers/AmFam, whatever.

Also, just because it was used twice: *forthwith

I agree with what you are saying for the most part and it is entirely possible that has decided not to report this and take this on himself given the relative (for him) limitations in significant recovery. My comment was with respect to self insurance in general when dealing with your home. So what if she didn't just fracture her foot but hit her head and was in a coma for the rest of her life. You can bet he's on the phone with the insurance pretty fast. Typing on phone so apologize for spelling errors .

It might surprise you but there are many things that would surprise the non-wealthy about how the wealthy conduct their financial affairs. No wealthy individual is going to risk a large chunk of his net worth by underinsuring himself, both for property and particularly for liability. It is true that nothing prevents a litigant for suing for more than a wealthy individual's coverage, which is why the wealthy usually carry enormous umbrella policies to protect themselves.

pokerstars should sign him

I don't want to continue this argument with you much further, as I'm sure someone will soon have a picture of Blitz with guns and half-naked women to post, but I'm pretty surprised to see a question like this in a poker forum, of all places.

In a scenario where you feel the risk is less than 0.5% of the potential claim, of course. And I would expect that the risk is going to be less every single time, or insurance companies would be losing money.

That's not to say that there aren't valid reasons for having insurance, whether you're wealthy or not. But it's silly to scoff at the idea of self-insuring.

Yeah, it's a word, of sorts, so it wasn't really worth Loctus mentioning it. But he still has a point.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...h/irregardless

Less semantics and more cool Blitz stories plz.

It also depends on the % chance that you will make a claim and whether or not the insurance company has compensated for it or perhaps underestimated the risk of that policy. In which case it is worthwhile to get insurance.

But put it this way: for a man who keeps loaded guns sitting around in almost every room it's a very sensible idea to have insurance.

thread has developed aids

Irregardless of whether or not he self-insures, it was a pretty entertaining stunt nonetheless.

lol

Beliebers.

I don't which one is worse... wearing long sleeves with leather shorts or mad dog strike posing in front of the media.

Belieber's bodyguard now or teaching the Biebs how to ball?

Someone needs to photoshop a naked Bieber being thrown off the roof by Bilzerian.

This has got to be a troll

I'm serious and I'd love for someone to explain why I am mistaken

If buying an insurance is +EV, then selling it must be -EV, and since insurance companies make tons of money, selling an insurance clearly isn't -EV, thus buying an insurance can't be +EV.

Where am I wrong?

I think you're the same guy who advocates putting his whole bankroll in with 22 against AK because you have a slight edge. WE'RE +EV with 22 > AK ship da whole rollZzzz

Good, then you agree that I was not mistaken in my assumption that getting insurance is inherently -$EV, it just depends on how big of a blow you're able to take.

Insurances are based on utilities and diversification. Purely mathematically it is -EV for buyer but since utilities of insurance company and buyer are unsymmeyrical, it is positive for both. Also diversification of insurance company's portfolio makes buyer's risk level lots of higher than company's. This also leads to the fact that situation is unsymmetrical.

Sent from my GT-I9105P using 2+2 Forums

Say your net worth is 1 billion dollars.

If you get liability insurance, it'll cost you about $50,000 a year. If no one ever sues you in 30 years, you have spent $1.5M on something, as you say, you did not ostensibly need, right?

But if you do not get the insurance, you run the risk of putting, let's say for argument's sake, no more than $100M, if you get sued and lose. (I'll even agree to cap it at that number)

A tenth of your net worth. But hey, you can afford it, right? No worries!

1.5M over the course of 30 years is nothing to you. And it gives you the peace of mind that your fortune cannot be litigated away from you.

You don't think this is worth it, huh?

They call it "insurance" for a reason.

All we were saying originally is that insurance is a pure mathematical -EV move and somehow you kept saying we were wrong. It's when you bring in risk tolerances that it becomes a +EV thing to do (for almost everyone). In other words, you need to define EV better.

End of discussion.

Most billionaires carry liability insurance for their homes. There is a reason they do that. Blitz is far from a billionaire.

End of discussion.