From the lens of behavioral economics (e.g., cumulative prospect theory) is there a situation where somebody can accurately understand the expected outcomes
of any particular bet BUT still come to the conclusion that taking the bet is rational?
If there's some combo of a floor effect (if they don't have much now, they don't have much to lose) and pessimism about the future (they think this is the only way they can manage to get ahead), I can see people deciding that gambling is worth it.
If there's some combo of a floor effect (if they don't have much now, they don't have much to lose) and pessimism about the future (they think this is the only way they can manage to get ahead), I can see people deciding that gambling is worth it.