{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06089309878213803, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0040595399188092015, 'mean_word_length': 4.138888888888889, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Risk: compensation and the expected utility hypothesis

The formula for Fair Risk-Compensation (hereafter, FRC) in betting situations is usually expressed as B/p(W), where B is the amount bet and p(W) is the probability of winning. (The psychological interpretation is clear. If an individual has 1 - p(W) chances of losing his investment-- where 1 - p(W)≫p(W), he must stand to gain, should he win, in proportion to his chances of winning; otherwise there is no point to undertaking the risk in the first place.) This formula is highly misleading. It is a trivial matter to construct betting policies where p(L) # 1 - p(W). (I. e. - where the probability of having to pay out money is not equal to the probability of not taking in money.)