Just completed another chapter of my book, "Against the Gods, The Remarkable Story of Risk" by Peter L. Bernstein. This chapter had a lot of interesting information, so I'm going to take a shot at generalizing the idea. In France in the 1600 -1800 businessmen began pooling money together to offer insurance of all types as well as debt. Thomas Babin Macaluay, a great English historian, specifically remarked how this left statesman and philosophers dumbfounded. Why these characters specifically is definitely an idea to explore. But I think the idea of debt is funny. Across all different types of debt instruments, the underlying premise is simple. The transfer of wealth from one to another, with at least one party not having access to the exchange value at present time (or at least not willing to commit the amount). Therefore, each party carries an amount of risk with the agreement. I think each party, the lender or lendee could come out on top. In an ideal world, both parties become satisfied with the agreement. However, the lender (in typical circumstances) should face less risk in the long run. I think the concept can become predatorial against the lendees, but also think lenders might over leverage themselves. But i am also intrigued to why statesman and philosophers are so confused by the idea of debt. I think it definitely requires a clever understanding of relationships your involved in and how cash is related to that relationship.

Motivation to write this post, influenced me to read another chapter of my book. "Against the Gods, The Remarkable Story of Risk" by Peter L. Bernstein. The idea is that putting intentional thought into your intellectual development, spurs improvement. And central to that idea is sharing posts, as writing is surprisingly effective. On Page 67, Berstein states: "Pascal is explicit about the moral issues involved and chooses his words with care. In his comments about this work, he points out that "the first thing which we must consider is that the money the players have put into the game no longer belongs to them... but they have received in return the right to expect that which they agreed at the outset." In the event that they decide to stop playing before the game is over, they will reenter into their original ownership rights of the money they have put into pot. At that point, "the rule determining that which will belong to them will be proportional to that which they had the right to expect from fortune .... This just distribution is known as the division." The principles of probability theory determine the division, because they determine the just distribution of the stakes." I jotted this quote down because I wanted to understand it further than just a quick skim. First, I like that the thought experiment mentions the ability to leave the game. People often overlook, their ability to leave games, and leaving games at the right time can prove to be valuable. At this rate, the players ownership stake is determined by the division. So before deciding to quit a game, think of how the divisor. Where did it start? Where is it now? And where is it heading? Some challenges I had with this post, was seeking out a good quote the whole chapter, when it should become more secondhand for me. With time I will find new ways to be more creative, so I'm not hyper-focused on sharing one liminal thought with the community.

Hey new members. To help you understand what I'm trying to curate here, I'll post this as an example. I recently created a sports betting model, so I'm trying to up my game. I'm reading a book called "Against the Gods, the Remarkable Story of Risk" by Peter Bernstein. A quote I though was interesting was: "Even more important, he propounded the idea that the satisfaction resulting from any small increasement in wealth "will be inversely proportionate to the quantity of goods previously possessed." With that innocent sounding assertion, Bernoulli explained why King Midas was an unhappy man, why people tend to be risk averse, and why prices must fall if customers are to be persuaded to buy more." Due to lack of time, I can't dive into why I really like this quote, but I related to the concept of diminishing marginal returns.