expected-value

$npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/expected-value

Calculate probability-weighted averages for rational decisions under uncertainty.

  • Helps compare risky investments, product bets, and strategic choices.
  • Integrates with financial data, project management tools, and risk assessment APIs.
  • Decides recommendations by ranking options based on expected return calculations.
  • Delivers clear numerical results with risk-adjusted interpretations and confidence intervals.

SKILL.md

.github/skills/expected-valueView on GitHub ↗
---
name: expected-value
description: Calculates probability-weighted averages of all possible outcomes to enable rational decisions under uncertainty. Covers scenario identification, probability estimation, payoff quantification, and risk-adjusted interpretation. Use when comparing risky options (investments, product bets, strategic choices), prioritizing projects by expected return, assessing whether to take a gamble, or when user mentions expected value, EV calculation, risk-adjusted return, probability-weighted outcomes, or decision tree.
---
# Expected Value

## Table of Contents
- [Workflow](#workflow)
- [Common Patterns](#common-patterns)
- [Guardrails](#guardrails)
- [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)

## Core Formula

**EV** = Σ (Probability of outcome x Value of outcome)

```
EV = (p₁ × v₁) + (p₂ × v₂) + ... + (pₙ × vₙ)
where probabilities must sum to 1.0
```

**Example**: Launch feature with 60% chance of $100k revenue, 40% chance of -$20k sunk cost.
EV = (0.6 x $100k) + (0.4 x -$20k) = $60k - $8k = **$52k** (positive EV, rational to launch if risk tolerance allows)

## Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

```
Expected Value Analysis Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Define decision and alternatives
- [ ] Step 2: Identify possible outcomes
- [ ] Step 3: Estimate probabilities
- [ ] Step 4: Estimate payoffs (values)
- [ ] Step 5: Calculate expected values
- [ ] Step 6: Interpret and adjust for risk preferences
```

**Step 1: Define decision and alternatives**

What decision are you making? What are the mutually exclusive options? See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#decision-framing-template).

**Step 2: Identify possible outcomes**

For each alternative, what could happen? List scenarios from best case to worst case. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#outcome-identification-template).

**Step 3: Estimate probabilities**

What's the probability of each outcome? Use base rates, reference classes, expert judgment, data. See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#1-probability-estimation-techniques).

**Step 4: Estimate payoffs (values)**

What's the value (gain or loss) of each outcome? Quantify in dollars, time, utility. See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#2-payoff-quantification).

**Step 5: Calculate expected values**

Multiply probabilities by payoffs, sum across outcomes for each alternative. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#ev-calculation-template).

**Step 6: Interpret and adjust for risk preferences**

Choose option with highest EV? Or adjust for risk aversion, non-monetary factors, strategic value. See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#4-risk-preferences-and-utility).

Validate using [resources/evaluators/rubric_expected_value.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_expected_value.json). **Minimum standard**: Average score ≥ 3.5.

## Common Patterns

**Pattern 1: Investment Decision (Discrete Outcomes)**
- **Structure**: Go/no-go choice with 3-5 discrete scenarios (best, base, worst case)
- **Use case**: Product launch, hire vs. not hire, accept investment offer, buy vs. lease
- **Pros**: Simple, intuitive, easy to communicate (decision tree visualization)
- **Cons**: Oversimplifies continuous distributions, binary framing may miss nuance
- **Example**: Launch product feature (60% success $100k, 40% fail -$20k) → EV = $52k

**Pattern 2: Portfolio Allocation (Multiple Options)**
- **Structure**: Allocate budget across N projects, each with own EV and risk profile
- **Use case**: Venture portfolio, R&D budget, marketing spend allocation, team capacity
- **Pros**: Diversification reduces variance, can optimize for risk/return tradeoff
- **Cons**: Requires estimates for many variables, correlations matter (not independent)
- **Example**: Invest in 3 startups ($50k each), EVs = [$20k, $15k, -$10k]. Total EV = $25k. Diversified portfolio reduces risk vs. single $150k bet.

**Pattern 3: Sequential Decision (Decision Tree)**
- **Structure**: Series of decisions over time, outcomes of early decisions affect later options
- **Use case**: Clinical trials (Phase I → II → III), staged investment, explore then exploit
- **Pros**: Captures optionality (can stop if early results bad), fold-back induction finds optimal strategy
- **Cons**: Tree grows exponentially, need probabilities for all branches
- **Example**: Phase I drug trial (70% pass, $1M cost) → if pass, Phase II (50% pass, $5M) → if pass, Phase III (40% approve, $50M revenue). Calculate EV working backwards.

**Pattern 4: Continuous Distribution (Monte Carlo)**
- **Structure**: Outcomes are continuous (revenue could be $0-$1M), use probability distributions
- **Use case**: Financial modeling, project timelines, resource planning, sensitivity analysis
- **Pros**: Captures full uncertainty, avoids discrete scenario bias, provides confidence intervals
- **Cons**: Requires distributional assumptions, computationally intensive, harder to communicate
- **Example**: Revenue ~ Normal($500k, $100k std dev). Run 10,000 simulations → mean = $510k, 90% CI = [$350k, $670k].

**Pattern 5: Competitive Game (Payoff Matrix)**
- **Structure**: Your outcome depends on competitor's choice, create payoff matrix
- **Use case**: Pricing strategy, product launch timing, negotiation, auction bidding
- **Pros**: Incorporates strategic interaction, finds Nash equilibrium
- **Cons**: Requires estimating competitor's probabilities and payoffs, game-theoretic complexity
- **Example**: Price high vs. low, competitor prices high vs. low → 2×2 matrix. Calculate EV for each strategy given beliefs about competitor.

## Guardrails

1. **Probabilities should sum to 1.0**: Listed outcomes need to be exhaustive (cover all possibilities) and mutually exclusive (no overlap). Verify: p1 + p2 + ... + pn = 1.0.

2. **Adjust for risk on one-shot, high-stakes decisions**: EV is a long-run average. For rare, irreversible decisions, factor in risk aversion. A 1% chance of $1B (EV = $10M) does not mean betting the house is rational.

3. **Quantify uncertainty, don't hide it**: Probabilities and payoffs are estimates. Use ranges, sensitivity analysis, or distributions rather than pretending false precision.

4. **Consider non-monetary value**: Some outcomes have utility not captured by money (reputation, learning, optionality, morale). Convert to a common scale or use multi-attribute utility.

5. **Ground probabilities in data**: Use base rates, reference classes, data, and expert forecasts rather than gut feel. Check calibration: are "70% confident" predictions right 70% of the time?

6. **Account for correlated outcomes**: If outcomes are not independent (e.g., economic downturn affects all portfolio companies), correlation reduces diversification benefit.

7. **Time value of money**: Discount future cash flows to present value. EV should use NPV, not nominal values.

8. **Consider option value**: In sequential decisions, fold-back induction finds optimal strategy. Factor in the option to stop early, pivot, or wait for more information.

**Common pitfalls:**

- ❌ **Ignoring risk aversion**: EV($100k, 50/50) = EV($50k, certain) but most prefer certain $50k. Use utility functions for risk-averse agents.
- ❌ **Anchor on single scenario**: "Best case is $1M!" → but probability is 5%. Focus on EV, not cherry-picked scenarios.
- ❌ **False precision**: "Probability = 67.3%" when you're guessing. Use ranges, express uncertainty.
- ❌ **Sunk cost fallacy**: Past costs are sunk, don't include in forward-looking EV. Only future costs/benefits matter.
- ❌ **Ignoring tail risk**: Low-probability, high-impact events (0.1% chance of -$10M) can dominate EV. Don't round to zero.
- ❌ **Static analysis**: Assume you can't update beliefs or change course. Real decisions allow learning and pivoting.

## Quick Reference

**Key formulas:**

**Expected Value**: EV = Σ (pᵢ × vᵢ) where p = probability, v = value

**Expected Utility** (for risk aversion): EU = Σ (pᵢ × U(vᵢ)) where U = utility function
- Risk-neutral: U(x) = x (EV = EU)
- Risk-averse: U(x) = √x or U(x) = log(x) (concave)
- Risk-seeking: U(x) = x² (convex)

**Net Present Value**: NPV = Σ (CF_t / (1+r)^t) where CF = cash flow, r = discount rate, t = time period

**Variance** (risk measure): Var = Σ (pᵢ × (vᵢ - EV)²)

**Standard Deviation**: σ = √Var

**Coefficient of Variation** (risk/return ratio): CV = σ / EV (lower = better risk-adjusted return)

**Breakeven probability**: p* where EV = 0. Solve: p* × v_success + (1-p*) × v_failure = 0.

**Decision rules**:
- **Maximize EV**: Choose option with highest EV (risk-neutral, repeated decisions)
- **Maximize EU**: Choose option with highest expected utility (risk-averse, incorporates preferences)
- **Minimax regret**: Minimize maximum regret across scenarios (conservative, avoid worst mistake)
- **Satisficing**: Choose first option above threshold EV (bounded rationality)

**Sensitivity analysis questions**:
- How much do probabilities need to change to flip decision?
- What's EV in best case? Worst case? Which variables have most impact?
- At what probability does EV break even (EV = 0)?

**Key resources:**
- **[resources/template.md](resources/template.md)**: Decision framing, outcome identification, EV calculation templates, sensitivity analysis
- **[resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md)**: Probability estimation, payoff quantification, decision tree analysis, utility functions
- **[resources/evaluators/rubric_expected_value.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_expected_value.json)**: Quality criteria (scenario completeness, probability calibration, payoff quantification, EV interpretation)

**Inputs required:**
- **Decision**: What are you choosing between? (2+ mutually exclusive alternatives)
- **Outcomes**: For each alternative, what could happen? (3-5 scenarios typical)
- **Probabilities**: How likely is each outcome? (sum to 1.0)
- **Payoffs**: What's the value (gain/loss) of each outcome? (dollars, time, utility)

**Outputs produced:**
- `expected-value-analysis.md`: Decision framing, outcome scenarios with probabilities and payoffs, EV calculations, sensitivity analysis, recommendation with risk considerations

More from lyndonkl/claude

SkillDescription
abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".