# I can't understand the comparison made by Kahneman [closed]

The chapter "Risk Policies", in Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow", opens with this example, which makes vivid the pitfalls of relying on our intuitions in choosing between bets:

Imagine that you face the following pair of concurrent decisions. First examine both decisions, then make your choices.

Decision (i): Choose between
A. sure gain of $$240 B. 25% chance to gain$$1,000 and 75% chance to gain nothing

Decision (ii): Choose between
C. sure loss of $$750 D. 75% chance to lose$$1,000 and 25% chance to lose nothing


Most people, looking at both concurrently, choose A and D. Now consider this second choice:

AD. 25% chance to win $$240 and 75% chance to lose$$760
BC. 25% chance to win $$250 and 75% chance to lose$$750


Clearly, any sane person will choose BC here; it dominates option AD.

However, AD is exactly the combination of options A and D, while BC is the combination of B and C.

But I cant understand how "sure gain of $240" option is transformed to "25% chance to win$240" and why these suggestions are equivalent? Am I missing something?

## closed as off-topic by Arnon Weinberg♦Oct 13 at 18:54

• This question does not appear to be about psychology or neuroscience within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• That's more a probability than a psychology question. In AD there are two scenarios, first you win 240 and then you might either lose 1000, or, not lose anything. In these scenarios you walk away either with -760 or with the 240 you won. – Quora Feans Oct 10 at 21:40
• Ohh, great thanks! – Narek Oct 11 at 0:46
• Closing as answered in comments. – Arnon Weinberg Oct 13 at 18:54