Hmm ... for her case, she could have come up with the probabilities and magnitude base on some financial models. There could be ways to buy " insurance" against such outcome or bet on it.
For for you medical case, I don't think you can bet on the patient's outcome? LOL
For those who likes to read, a bit of history
Gambling is a feature of capitalism—not a bug - John Kay It has always been part of financial markets, from their origins in 17th-century coffee houses to the Great Crash of 2008
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazin...
An interesting passage :
"The first insurance policies were fire and marine, but the scope of the industry extended to life insurance with the development of actuarial science, the gathering of accurate statistics from which life expectancy could be assessed. In the mid-17th century, John Graunt had constructed the first mortality table by inspecting burial records. But it was not until the following century that the ultimately ill-fated Equitable Life Assurance Society was founded, “equitable” because its premiums were calculated on actuarial principles. In contrast, in the coffee houses, gentlemen with little interest in mathematics took bets on when the king would die, and whether Admiral John Byng would be executed.
Aside from being distasteful, this wagering was dangerous. How would you react if your neighbour bought insurance on your life, or against your house burning down? In 1768, the London Chronicle thundered that “when policies come to be opened on two of the first peers in Britain losing their heads and on the dissolution of the present parliament within one year… it is surely time for the administration to interfere.”
The administration did indeed interfere. The courts established the doctrine of uberrima fides—an insurance contract was void unless the insured had declared everything that might be relevant to the other party’s assessment of the risk. And legislation created the concept of “insurable interest,” whereby you could take out insurance only if you would suffer some demonstrable loss, financial or emotional, from the event against which you sought to insure; thus saving you from the temptation of assassinating your neighbour in order to benefit from insurance. The law sought to draw a line between insurance, based on economic interest, and wagering for amusement. It was important, and a natural consequence, that insurance contracts were legally binding, but wagers were not. An English gambling debt was a debt in honour only, enforceable only by social convention—or private force. Such provision remained part of English law until 2005—only then did bets at William Hill become legally binding."
The Singlish reply.
Ans 1: dunno leh.
Ans 2: dunno leh.
Reply to @kc2024 : End off with Ans 3: Huat la!
Then CNBC will never ever ask u back again
Hmm ... for her case, she could have come up with the probabilities and magnitude base on some financial models. There could be ways to buy " insurance" against such outcome or bet on it.
For for you medical case, I don't think you can bet on the patient's outcome? LOL
For those who likes to read, a bit of history
Gambling is a feature of capitalism—not a bug - John Kay
It has always been part of financial markets, from their origins in 17th-century coffee houses to the Great Crash of 2008
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazin...
An interesting passage :
"The first insurance policies were fire and marine, but the scope of the industry extended to life insurance with the development of actuarial science, the gathering of accurate statistics from which life expectancy could be assessed. In the mid-17th century, John Graunt had constructed the first mortality table by inspecting burial records. But it was not until the following century that the ultimately ill-fated Equitable Life Assurance Society was founded, “equitable” because its premiums were calculated on actuarial principles. In contrast, in the coffee houses, gentlemen with little interest in mathematics took bets on when the king would die, and whether Admiral John Byng would be executed.
Aside from being distasteful, this wagering was dangerous. How would you react if your neighbour bought insurance on your life, or against your house burning down? In 1768, the London Chronicle thundered that “when policies come to be opened on two of the first peers in Britain losing their heads and on the dissolution of the present parliament within one year… it is surely time for the administration to interfere.”
The administration did indeed interfere. The courts established the doctrine of uberrima fides—an insurance contract was void unless the insured had declared everything that might be relevant to the other party’s assessment of the risk. And legislation created the concept of “insurable interest,” whereby you could take out insurance only if you would suffer some demonstrable loss, financial or emotional, from the event against which you sought to insure; thus saving you from the temptation of assassinating your neighbour in order to benefit from insurance. The law sought to draw a line between insurance, based on economic interest, and wagering for amusement. It was important, and a natural consequence, that insurance contracts were legally binding, but wagers were not. An English gambling debt was a debt in honour only, enforceable only by social convention—or private force. Such provision remained part of English law until 2005—only then did bets at William Hill become legally binding."
Reply to @wellhandy : Come to think about it, maybe she's trying to sell portfolio insurance? :-)
i'm no expert, does a long straddle with some customization work?
http://www.theoptionsguide.com/long-stradd...