There's two boxes in front of you. One with $1 million. The other a 50/50 chance at $100 million

[NightWatcher]

Oh, the boxes are weighed down and locked so you can't grab them both and run.

Which would you choose?





(And be sure to answer honestly, else it will throw off the algorithms I'm writing to steal your banking info).


Kidding, but my friend says it's what they do to us with all those stupid quizzes online.

33 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Take the given $1 million
	27 (82%)
	Take the 50% chance at $100 million
	6 (18%)
	Not answering because of that "algorithm" thing you mentioned.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[kacekwl]

1. Being a person living penny to penny I of course choose

1 million now because then I could breath again. If I had a million I might choose the other option. Greed might take over.

[redstatebluegirl]

2. With my health I would choose the million, it would go a long way to help my medical situation.

[samnsara]

3. so whats the other 50% made up of?

aren't they both 50/50?

[NightWatcher]

6. One box is either empty or has 100 million, while the other has a guaranteed $1 million

Sorry if my phrasing is off.

Would you take a guaranteed million or take the shot at 100 million?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. $1,000,000... bird in the hand

[Phoenix61]

5. I'm not greedy

I'd take the million, pay off the house and the car and do some much longed for traveling.

[Salviati]

7. I sell my opportunity to choose to a multimillionaire for $20 million.

If I had to choose, it would definitely be the 1 million. That's enough to change your life, and though it may not be the "economicly rational" decision, there is a value in certainty.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. Oooh good thinking

You might get some hedge fund to pay a couple million

Put me down for bird in the hand

[FBaggins]

27. That's the right answer

Though it's probably worth closer to $40M

[Volstagg]

35. I would think $20 million is about right

Given the odds are 50/50 (which across the sample I am going to give you is not really guaranteed to be 50/50), if they bought four options, they are still not guaranteed a hit on the $100 million, but it's pretty damn likely. Totally likely that buying two options results in both being nothing.

[FBaggins]

36. That's really a question of risk appetite

The true value of the chest is $50 million. That is... if you have billions of dollars to spend and could make the choice thousands of times... you would average $50 million per attempt.

Obviously, the price has to be below that since you only get a single attempt (you can't buy two options). The appropriate price depends a great deal on the purchaser's net worth and appetite for risk. $40 million for an asset that will either be worth nothing or $100M implies an immediate 25% average return, but also a large risk to capital. Whether that's too large a risk or a no-brainer decision depends on how big a deal the $40M price tag is for you. As you can see on the rest of the thread... for anyone who feels that a million dollars is life-changing... they aren't willing to take the risk.

But say it was instead a "special" at the roulette table today. There were no longer any green spaces and odd/even or red/black were true 50-50 propositions. To make things better... the casino is selling $5 chips for $4. If you barely had money for lunch, you might not play... but if you had $1,000 in your pocket that was "mad money"... you would play at that table all day long.

So it's a question of who is in the market. If there's a billionaire who doesn't mind taking risks... $40 million is probably low.

[DFW]

8. I'd hand the whole package over to the the American Cancer Society

Let them figure it out.

[Tanuki]

9. I would take the $1 million. I sometimes worry about having

enough money to live on when I retire someday, and the interest alone on $ 1 million would take away that worry.

[femmedem]

10. A million dollars is more than enough to be comfortable for life.

I can't imagine what I would do with more, other than give it away.

Even with a million, there's a lot left over for philanthropy.

[irisblue]

12. Mom , me & the cats would be very comfortable on 1 million. nt

[sakabatou]

13. 50/50 chance at 100 million or nothing?

[exboyfil]

14. Could you live with yourself if you took the chance on the $100M

and lost?

It would be fun to find what number if you kept the ratios the same.

For me $100K or chance for $10M/nothing. I would go for the $10M chance.


The term we are looking for is f___k you money. A million reaches that level for most.

Of course if you take the million, you will always have the mind worm telling you that you should have taken the chance.

[WinkyDink]

16. The real question is: Could you live having given up a sure million and won nothing?

[exboyfil]

17. So what would be your number

Mine is $100K to go for $10M (50/50). I would probably go for that in Vegas (this presupposes you don't have a syndicate behind you - it is your money and your risk). I just would not tell my wife if I lost a large portion of our retirement.

[WinkyDink]

21. I used to watch "Deal or No Deal" with my mother, always marvellng at the greed on display! People

lost hundreds of thousands, because they wanted to risk going for more.

Now, that said, I am a gambler, but relatively small-time (Sands Casino is in my town).

So what would my "Must take" and my "Would risk" numbers be?

I don't know that I would risk $100K, and I'll tell you why:

I already did, and lost. Literally, I turned down almost $100K in a FL real estate offer, thinking it would go higher. And then it plummeted. Bigly.

So maybe half of your deal.

[NobodyHere]

23. Keep in mind that when people are given "free" money

they are more likely to gamble or even be generous with that money.

[WinkyDink]

15. The sure thing.

[ailsagirl]

18. No contest-- $1 million is way more than enough

[TexasBushwhacker]

19. Yeah, I'm 60 and would live quite comfortably on $1M

I probably wouldn't even have to dip into the principle much. I could leave it to my youngest brother.

[ailsagirl]

20. Yep!!

[malthaussen]

22. One million is quite sufficient to my requirements.

To those who see money as a tool and nothing more, the answer is easy.

-- Mal

[Yavin4]

24. If I were a Republican, I'd take the 50/50 chance, and if I came up empty...

I'd blame African Americans and undocumented workers.

[dawg]

25. I would take the 50/50 chance.

$1 million is a lot, but lots of people who have that much money nonetheless end up penniless. It would be hard to earn more than $20,000 a year in interest on that amount, and if you were to draw your principal down by $50,000 a year - in 20 years it would be gone.

On the other hand, $100 million would be a transformative amount - not just for me, but for most of the people who are close to me as well.

[NightWatcher]

26. Good answer. For me it'd be a tough choice

The guarantee would be nice but 100 million could change an awful lot more.

[Kaleva]

29. I live on less then $20,000 a year now.

[dawg]

31. My situation is a little weird. I have four other adults ...

in two other households, who are all dependent on me to some extent. They all have medical or emotional conditions that limit their abilities to live up to their full potential, and there is no easy fix for most of their problems. Our health care system is a mess, and I spend more than $20,000 a year just providing for their health coverage, co-pays, and deductibles.

$1 million dollars would help me a lot, but I would still need to work. $100 million would change everything.

[Kaleva]

32. Yes, everone has a diiferant situation.

[A HERETIC I AM]

33. You could get $30,000/year from 30 yr Treasuries

Before taxes.

A bit more tax free with a varied muni bond portfolio, but not much.

[DuckBurp]

28. I would take the $1 million

However, take away some of the zeroes. Say, either take $1 thousand or a 50/50 chance at $100,000, then I would take my chance at the larger amount. I'm not sure exactly why.

[left-of-center2012]

30. I'm 70 and in poor health

I'll take the sure million.

[IrishEyes]

34. I would take the 50/50 chance at $100 million.

I have a job that pays decently. I've always been good with money so i can live comfortably on my salary. I'm also fairly young. I'm in good health and so are my parents and siblings. If I opened the box and it was empty, I wouldn't be worse off then before. If I opened it and it was $100 million then I would start a foundation to donate it all to different charities.

[Iggo]

37. I don't need a hundred mil. And I don't need nothin'.

Guaranteed mil, easy.

[Orrex]

38. Did I miss my chance for the ourang-outan head in the box?

Always a bridesmaid...

[MosheFeingold]

39. Is there tax on it? n/t

[Awsi Dooger]

40. Not even close

I'd have to resign as a gambler if I didn't take the 50/50 swing.

We actually used to pose questions like this all the time in Las Vegas sportsbooks. Actually they weren't like this. The gain on one side was minimal enough that you had to seriously think about it, and all the corresponding variables.

I'm not sure I know one person who would wimp out and take the one million. Well, maybe a family member. I have some who don't risk anything.

I do wish that I had a stock pick now that was as simple as Apple in the late '90s.