Talk:Dutch book

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fascinating[edit]

Fascinating. Sweetfreek 21:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you liked this article, you should also like coherence (philosophical gambling strategy). Michael Hardy 23:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

better explained[edit]

I think the gambling section needs to be better explained, especially the gambling terminology used. Why does the bookie need to pay out $200 no matter what happens? I don't get it. --Zeno of Elea 04:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

If Horse 1 wins, the bookmaker returns 100 of stake, plus 100 (evens) so 200. If Horse 2 wins the payout is 50 of stake plus 150 (3/1), and so on. --Henrygb 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

etimological background[edit]

I would be happy to see some etimological background too. As I know the "dutch whatever" structure is used in english to say that something is of low quality, while this is definitely not true to dutch book. One really nice game (in the general sense, not economic) with this double meaning of "dutch" is in one of Matthew Rabin's articles; something like "several professors wrote dutch chapters, but none of them has a dutch book".

I tried to reflect the clarification given by Henrygb in the table, since I also had no gambling background and had to take a little time to figure out what was being said. Hopefully this is correct (there was also an error in one of the stakes, I believe - see changes) 83.103.77.181 (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Apropos of that, I thought a Dutch Book was one that the bookie screwed up so that he loses money. In other words, a low quality book. I ran across the expression in a book about Saratoga Springs. NY, in its heyday, when a bookie was driven out of business because he didn't understand what he was doing. (Edit) In other words, the example in the article in which Horse 4 withdraws from the race. Fabulous bawd : the story of Saratoga / by Mel Heimer. 72.182.33.219 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Eric
This article is low interest, it seems, but as I suggest above, it is totally wrong and has the definition backwards. A Dutch Book is one in which the probabilities add up to less than 1 and the bookie loses money to someone who bets on every horse. A properly figured "Book" needs no adjective, the track or the bookie always wins if bettors bet randomly or on every horse. 72.182.33.219 (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Eric
I reiterate the above and point out that in the article "Dutching" wikipedia says: "This is not to be confused with what constitutes a Dutch book which is when a bookmaker goes overbroke (the opposite to overround)." The concept of "overround" is explained well (although from an obviously British POV) in the article Mathematics of bookmaking. Overround is what a bookmaker wants: he makes money. The Dutch book is the opposite. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Eric

Economist[edit]

As far as I studied economics I encounter only the economists who argued that transitive preferences are not present. Shouldn't the section pointed out who, if anyone, states such consumer exists? Uzytkownik (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does the name come from[edit]

This information should be included in the article and cited appropriately.128.195.57.188 (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

The article could do a better job of separating:

* The concept of a Dutch Book
* The Dutch Book Argument of anthropic probability  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.183.140 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)