All you need really is a game of chance in which the more you have to play with the more profitable bets you have access to. And I think that's a feature of any fair game of chance because it has more to do with things like gambler's ruin than it has to do with the specifics of the game being played.
In probability theory, the term sometimes refers to the fact that a gambler will almost certainly go broke in the long run against an opponent with much more money, even if the opponent's advantage on each turn is small or zero.
I'm IN! In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
Assume the average payoff is 103% (allowing for economic growth) and that the payoff distribution extends down to 0% (ruin).
Assume the agents can place more distinct bets the more money they have. (Assuming a nonzero smallest bet size suffices)
Then the wealthier players can diversify their variance away and capture the 103%. The less wealthy players cannot and are more likely to go bust.
If the average payoff is less than 100% so the game is a loss to players, and you must play, it is known that diversification doesn't work because you want to have sufficient variance to be able to have payoffs about 100% some of the time.
Is that it? The proofs are left as an exercise for the (bored) reader. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
More later. Have to hit the sack, rest my back (I'm a budding poet). In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
I did it. So "they" can too. If "they" weren't lazy/stupid/black/catholic/jewish/-------
Poor = defective, for these rich men from Upper Arlington, Ohio. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
