elrey2375 wrote in post #15801351
It's not about comparing the odds themselves, it's the fact that there are odds involved in both. Nobody is making tables on your marriage prospects...
Well, they dont exist for any one person, but the overall dataset that any insurance company collects, can CERTAINLY be used to predict(logistic multiple regression) your probability of being married by a particular age given some rather basic assumptions about an individual...age, height, weight, education, location, there is probably a metric measuring overall health separate from BMI. And I certainly would want to know how many of my insured risks are going to marry...so then I can market products to them and make more money.
I should be an actuary....
banquetbear wrote in post #15801607
...and the thing is he has had plenty of opportunity to clarify what he said.
But now he has decided to charge for that honour. You gonna pay him?
He is saying that throwing money at insurance is the same as throwing money at the lottery: both are throwing money away. That was the point of his comparision. That point is backed up by the rhetorical questions he has asked in the thread and the new thread he opened to try and back up his point.
But paying money for insurance isn't throwing money away. The relevance of the odds are as significant as the relevance of the odds that one day I will get married. The comparison is a strawman.
Simple question: if someone came up to you in the early stages of their business plan and asked you for their advice on getting liability insurance...would you say to them "yes, you should plan on having it", or would you say "don't plan for it: and if you can't afford it thats okay, because the odds of something happening are the same as winning the lottery?"
the odds are certainly not the same. first you have to buy a lottery ticket, after that, your chance of winning is pretty uniformly distributed.
most photographers are woefully underinsured when starting out.