[ODB72]

Here is part of an email that my friend (by the way he is not a poker player) sent me, that applies to your situation.......

Here is another psychological result. This one isn't something you'd
necessarily realize a priori, and so (unlike the previous case) I suspect it's
not as well known among poker players.

Question #1: Suppose I give you $300. Next, I give you the following choice.
You can either
(a) Play a game of chance (like tossing a coin) where there's a 50% chance you
will win an additional $200 and a 50% chance you will win no additional money.
(b) Instead of playing a game, you get $100 guaranteed -- it's a sure thing.

At this point, really think about which of these two options you would prefer.

Now, Question #2: Suppose I give you $500. Next, I give you the following
choice. You can either
(a) Play a game of chance (like tossing a coin) where there's a 50% chance you
have to pay me $200 back and a 50% chance you don't have to pay me back
anything.
(b) Instead of playing a game, you just give me back $100.

Again, really think about which of these two options you would prefer.

In question #1, most people (72%) say they would take option (b), the sure thing
of $100. In question #2, most people (64%) say they would take option (a), the
game of chance. But if you think about it, this makes no sense. Notice that
in Question #1 option (a), there's a 50% chance you will have $500 (given the
$300 you start off with) and a 50% chance you will have $300. The exact same
is true in question #2 option (a) -- again, you have a 50% chance at $500 (give
the $500 you start off with) and a 50% chance at $300. Similarly, Question #1
option (b) gives you a guaranteed $400 while question #2 option (b) also gives
you a guaranteed $400. So, if you prefer option (a) in #1 you should also
prefer option (2) in #2; and if you prefer option (b) in #1 you should also
prefer option b in #2. What's irrational here is not either that you would
prefer (a) or that you would prefer (b) -- a rational risk-taker might prefer
(a) while a rational conservative might prefer (b). What's irrational here is
that you would *switch*, preferring (b) in #1 and (a) in #2. And the data
shows that a lot of people are "switchers", and so a lot of people are
irrational in this way.

Here's the standard explanation. When it comes to "gains", people want sure
things rather than risk. That's why in #1 most people take (b). When it comes
to "losses", people are willing to take risks that would help them minimize
their losses rather than taking sure losses. That's why in #2 most people take
(a). But, whether something gets *counted* as a gain or a loss often turns on
subjective matters of how people perceive a situtation, not on something
objective. Since I only "give you" $300 to start off with in question #1,
options (a) and (b) feel like a decision between two gains. When I "give you"
$500 in question #2, options (a) and (b) feel like a decision between two
losses. Because #1 *feels* like a gains-decision while #2 feels like a
losses-decision, people respond to them differently, even though they are
objectively (mathematically, etc.) the exact same decisions. I haven't
completely thought through how this fact can be exploited in poker, although I
know there are certain corporations, like insurance agencies, which try to
exploit it in their domains. I have a few guesses as to how one might try to
do so, but this e-mail is already awfully long.