Comment by purple_turtle

That is why "and 250k loss would be more than 90 times worse" is there.

If loss of 250k would ruin my life and loss of 3k would be annoying, then paying makes sense.

Similarly, taking bet "double your wealth at 51% chance, lose every single thing you own at 49% chance" likely makes no sense, despite mean value being above zero.

> isn't it the same as saying that paying 3k for 1% chance of winning 250k is a good idea?

not in cases where loss of 250k would be more problematic than benefit of gaining 250k

for example loss of 250k may make someone homeless while gaining 250k would allow them to live a bit more comfortable - in such case bad effects of loss are much greater than gaining 250k

in other words, utility of money is not on a linear scale