This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I think life-savings is a bit over dramatic. One would assume the term life-savings is more than $2,600.00
He's also a **** idiot, losing $300.00 then going to get another $2,300.00 to 'win it back'. If you were that depserate for an Xbox with Kinect go buy one. If you were that desperate to win your losses back back an odds-on horse or something - it's a gamble but you actually win your money back and not just an Xbox if it comes in?
^ It really does! Now, for the benefit of people here less intelligent than me - ie most of them - what the **** does that mean? Obviously, I know exactly what you're talking about, but many people won't.
The Sunk cost fallacy is where you keep investing in something based on how much you have already invested in it rather than the risk/reward of investing in it.
For example if you owned a company on the verge of bankruptcy. You may be more inclined to invest more money in it if you had already invested a large amount of money into it. While logic says you should sell the company.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.