Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get how your argument about time relates. You don't acquire the risk of injury, death or property damage at the same time you purchase insurance. In both cases under discussion, there is existing risk that is mitigated by betting. > If you were doing both bets before the game started, at about the same time, then the second bet would effectively not be gambling. Not because of your motivation, exactly, but be…
> Why would the second bet in your example be any different from the second bet in mine? If you're conditionally making the second bet based on outside factors, then you might not actually be implementing a strategy of reduced variance. (And if you were making that bet unconditionally then why did you wait until midgame?) It's tricky. I'd rather deal with simpler upfront scenarios. > Let's go with a more real world e…
This doesn't make sense to me. What are "outside" factors and why do they matter? When you place the second bet, you have risk that you are reducing. Whether that risk has changed since you placed your first bet has no effect on whether your second bet reduces your risk or not.
> I'd rather deal with simpler upfront scenarios.
I'm sure you would, but you have failed to explain the relevance of upfront scenarios to our discussion.
> If you don't have enough info you might overpay, but overpaying isn't gambling.
You have still failed to explain WHY you think reducing risk by placing a bet that you will be injured is not gambling but placing other bets that reduce risk are.