sunk cost fallacy

Danish translation: fejlagtig antagelse om, at man er nødt til at forsætte, når man har investeret et stort beløb

GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
English term or phrase:sunk cost fallacy
Danish translation:fejlagtig antagelse om, at man er nødt til at forsætte, når man har investeret et stort beløb
Entered by: Dinny

13:19 Jun 16, 2006
English to Danish translations [PRO]
Games / Video Games / Gaming / Casino
English term or phrase: sunk cost fallacy
This concerns a type of bluffing strategy in poker. Can anyone please help with the equivalent (if any) in Danish? If there is no equivalent a short-short explanation would do...

TIA
Dinny
Greece
Local time: 19:28
fejlagtig antagelse om, at man er nødt til at forsætte, når man har investeret et stort beløb
Explanation:
Wikipedia has a thorough explanation of 'sunk cost', which mentions the 'sunk cost fallacy':

Many people have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources. This is called "loss aversion". Many people, for example, would feel obligated to go to the movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price; they feel they passed the point of no return. This is sometimes called the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": It is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made.

This line of thinking, in turn, may reflect a nonstandard measure of utility, which is ultimately subjective and unique to the consumer. When a ticket-buyer purchases a ticket in advance to a bad movie, he has still made a semi-public commitment to watching it. The ticket-buyer may "save face" by sticking it out, a satisfaction he cannot draw if he leaves. To leave early is to make his lapse of judgment manifest to strangers, an appearance he may rationally choose to avoid. He may, in fact, find some amusement in how bad the movie turned out to be, and take pride that he recognised it to be bad. Or he may feel qualified to criticize the movie in front of his peers. Either way, this mitigates the decision to view the movie, not the decision to purchase the ticket.

--

So in poker, I suppose it's the idea that when you've bet a large portion of money, you somehow 'should' continue to bet. The smart, cool player, who does not buy in to the sunk cost fallacy, will fold when he or she needs to, regardless of what came before.

Then again, I don't play poker myself...
Selected response from:

Mads Grøftehauge
Local time: 18:28
Grading comment
Thank you, Mads, for this very thorough explanation :-)
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
4fejlagtig antagelse om, at man er nødt til at forsætte, når man har investeret et stort beløb
Mads Grøftehauge


  

Answers


42 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
fejlagtig antagelse om, at man er nødt til at forsætte, når man har investeret et stort beløb


Explanation:
Wikipedia has a thorough explanation of 'sunk cost', which mentions the 'sunk cost fallacy':

Many people have strong misgivings about "wasting" resources. This is called "loss aversion". Many people, for example, would feel obligated to go to the movie despite not really wanting to, because doing otherwise would be wasting the ticket price; they feel they passed the point of no return. This is sometimes called the sunk cost fallacy. Economists would label this behavior "irrational": It is inefficient because it misallocates resources by depending on information that is irrelevant to the decision being made.

This line of thinking, in turn, may reflect a nonstandard measure of utility, which is ultimately subjective and unique to the consumer. When a ticket-buyer purchases a ticket in advance to a bad movie, he has still made a semi-public commitment to watching it. The ticket-buyer may "save face" by sticking it out, a satisfaction he cannot draw if he leaves. To leave early is to make his lapse of judgment manifest to strangers, an appearance he may rationally choose to avoid. He may, in fact, find some amusement in how bad the movie turned out to be, and take pride that he recognised it to be bad. Or he may feel qualified to criticize the movie in front of his peers. Either way, this mitigates the decision to view the movie, not the decision to purchase the ticket.

--

So in poker, I suppose it's the idea that when you've bet a large portion of money, you somehow 'should' continue to bet. The smart, cool player, who does not buy in to the sunk cost fallacy, will fold when he or she needs to, regardless of what came before.

Then again, I don't play poker myself...


    Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
Mads Grøftehauge
Local time: 18:28
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in DanishDanish
PRO pts in category: 12
Grading comment
Thank you, Mads, for this very thorough explanation :-)
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:

Your current localization setting

English

Select a language

Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search