History Main / SunkCostFallacy

Compare KnowWhenToFoldEm.

* Gambling addictions usually fall into this trope. While people who are hooked on gambling are hooked on the rush of risking everything to win big, other addicted gamblers will gladly keep blowing money on a game until they can win back everything they lost just because they already lost money in the first place. For example, if someone were to lose $5000 in a game, they will keep spending money on that game until they can win back that $5000 plus the additional money spent to get back the initial losses. In other words, "I already invested so much money in this game, I may as well keep playing until I can win everything back." Overlaps with GamblingFallacy, because obviously a losing streak means you have to win something soon, maybe the very next game.

* Within sociology, the combination of this and MyGirlIsNotASlut often leads to girls feeling resigned to becoming sexually promiscuous after having had sex once. After all, they can only lose their virginity once and what does it matter after that?

* This is one of the main reasons why people continue to play [[MassivelyMultiplayerOnlineRoleplayingGame MMOs]] even when they aren't enjoying them. It's arguable that MMO designers deliberately use this fallacy to encourage people to continue playing the game.
** They're more likely to [[http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html use a kind of Skinner Box and string along small rewards.]]
** [[AllegedlyFreeGame "Free-to-play" MMORPG games]]. After sinking substantial money into the game (to get powerups that nonpayers wouldn't have), the player feels compelled to continue, even when the grind is getting difficult. This is especially true of games where experience (or worse, levels) are lost for death. You pay up, or one lag-related death takes an enormous amount of experience. Despite getting to the point where even 0.10% experience takes hours while death loss takes only seconds, the player continues to play. It's actually worse in some ways than for subscription-based, since supposedly "nobody forced you to pay" (although the game itself may be balance-weighted toward payment, by making items scarce and leveling slow), making you feel personally committed rather than having paid what was effectively a usage cost.

* In poker, a player is "pot committed" when he/she calls simply because the pot is large. Some players will do this with poor cards even when they have no chance to win just because they've already sunk a lot of money into the pot, even when there's no chance that they'll win. Note that being pot committed is not always this fallacy - sometimes, the pot is so big relative to the cost of calling that the strategically correct choice is to call even when your odds are slim (but non-zero). [[hottip:For example:Texas Hold'em, family pot, you're holding an Ace another suited card with a flush draw on the turn, and the board shows no pair nor any chance of a straight flush. Your chances of making the nut flush on the river are slightly worse than 1 in 5, but as long as you can see the river by contributing less than 1/5th of the pot, it's a mathematically sound play to call.]] Odds are actually about 1 in 6.5, two of the nine remaining suited cards would leave a pair on the board.

* Gambling addictions usually fall into this trope. While people who are hooked on gambling are hooked on the rush of risking everything to win big, other addicted gamblers will gladly keep blowing money on a game until they can win back everything they lost just because they already lost money in the first place. For example, if someone were to lose $5000 in a game, they will keep spending money on that game until they can win back that $5000 plus the additional money spent to get back the initial losses. In other words, "I already invested so much money in this game, I may as well keep playing until I can win everything back."

** Or even after it's obvious they are discussing with irrational fools that insult them rather than argue with them.
*** One of the games [[{{Troll}} Internet trolls]] like to play is see how long they can string along their poor, furiously typing target(s).

* Stephen Colbert, on ''Series/TheColbertReport'', summed it up quite succinctly when discussing the American dilemma of whether [[ColdBloodedTorture torture was justified]] since it helped to capture and kill a hated terrorist. Stephen's usual InsaneTrollLogic is applied to the point where, because America has already lost its beloved moral superiority by using torture, they have to ''keep'' torturing until it solves all of our problems, or:

* Stephen Colbert, on TheColbertReport, summed it up quite succinctly when discussing the American dilemma of whether [[ColdBloodedTorture torture was justified]] since it helped to capture and kill a hated terrorist. Stephen's usual InsaneTrollLogic is applied to the point where, because America has already lost its beloved moral superiority by using torture, they have to ''keep'' torturing until it solves all of our problems, or:

* In poker, a player is "pot committed" when he/she calls simply because the pot is large. Some players will do this with poor cards even when they have no chance to win just because they've already sunk a lot of money into the pot, even when there's no chance that they'll win. Note that being pot committed is not always this fallacy - sometimes, the pot is so big relative to the cost of calling that the strategically correct choice is to call even when your odds are slim (but non-zero). [[hottip:For example:Texas Hold'em, family pot, you're holding an Ace another suited card with a flush draw on the turn, and the board shows no pair nor any chance of a straight flush. Your chances of making the nut flush on the river are slightly worse than 1 in 5, but as long as you can see the river by contributing less than 1/5th of the pot, it's a mathematically sound play to call.]]

** Defense projects like a new generation of stealth fighters or other extremely expensive stuff can drag on for decades and have cost overruns of 500% or more.

** This works better with non-cumulative risks (like Lotto); otherwise, see pot committed above.

** "Free-to-play" MMORPG games. After sinking substantial money into the game (to get powerups that nonpayers wouldn't have), the player feels compelled to continue, even when the grind is getting difficult. This is especially true of games that experience (or worse, levels) are lost for death. You pay up, or one lag-related death takes an enormous amount of experience. Despite getting to the point where even 0.10% experience takes hours while death loss takes only seconds, the player continues to play. It's actually worse in some ways than for subscription-based, since supposedly "nobody forced you to pay" (although the game itself may be balance-weighted toward payment, by making items scarce and leveling slow), making you feel personally committed rather than having paid what was effectively a usage cost.

* This is often the reason people will spend lots of time on internet arguments, even after they're losing. Or as [[{{Dilbert}} Scott Adams]] put it, "Nothing makes [someone] argue harder than being proven wrong."

** This works better with non-cumulative risks (like Lotto); otherwise, see pot committed above.

When somebody's sacrificed or invested a great deal in a cause or project, they tend to become irrationally dedicated to it. This applies even (or perhaps ''especially'') when the costs invested can't be recovered. More of a cognitive bias than anything.

-->If I spend fifteen dollars on this contest, I can win the prize.
-->I can buy the prize elsewhere for five dollars.
-->I have already spent eight dollars on the contest. Since I don't want the money to be wasted, I will continue.

Compare KnowWhenToFoldEm.

** There is a WorldWarOne poem along similar lines, where the ghosts of the fallen tell the living to keep fighting so they will not have died in vain. (Can someone find a proper citation please?)

* One example of this is the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction dollar auction]]. An emcee decides to auction off a dollar with a starting bid of one cent (which may be adjusted for inflation) - but there's a catch. The high bidder gets the dollar, but the second-highest bidder still has to pay their bid and gets nothing. The bidding will start off with each of the bidders standing to profit, but once the high bid reaches 99 cents, the second bidder has to choose between losing 98 cents or bidding one dollar and making nothing. After this, the first bidder has to choose between losing 99 cents or bidding $1.01 and losing a cent. This process of bidding will continue even though neither side stands to gain from future bids.

* In poker, a player is "pot committed" when he/she calls simply because the pot is large. Some amateur players will do this with poor cards even when they have no chance to win just because they've already sunk a lot of money into the pot, even when there's no chance that they'll win. Note that being pot committed is not always this fallacy - sometimes, the pot is so big relative to the cost of calling that the strategically correct choice is to call even when your odds are slim (but non-zero). [[hottip:For example:Texas Hold'em, family pot, you're holding an Ace another suited card with a flush draw on the turn, and the board shows no pair nor any chance of a straight flush. Your chances of making the nut flush on the river are slightly worse than 1 in 5, but as long as you can see the river by contributing less than 1/5th of the pot, it's a mathematically sound play to call.]]

* In poker, a player is "pot committed" when he/she calls simply because the pot is large. Some amateur players will do this with poor cards even when they have no chance to win just because they've already sunk a lot of money into the pot, even when there's no chance that they'll win. Note that being pot committed is not always this fallacy - sometimes, the pot is so big relative to the cost of calling that the strategically correct choice is to call even when your odds are slim (but non-zero). [[hottip:For example:Texas Hold'em, family pot, you're holding an Ace another suited card with a flush draw on the turn, and the board shows no pair nor any chance of a straight flush. Your chances of making the nut flush on the river are slightly worse than 1 in 5, but as long as you can see the turn by contributing less than 1/5th of the pot, it's a mathematically sound play to call.]]

* One use of the poker term "pot committed" is when a player continues to call with poor cards simply because they've already sunk a lot of money into the pot, even when there's no chance that they'll win.
** By the way, even poker experts disagree on whether "pot committed" is really a thing, or how situational it is (e.g., does it matter how much everybody else has bet?). Be ready for debate if you just go around the poker community calling it a fallacy.

When somebody's sacrificed or invested a great deal in a cause or project, they tend to become irrationally dedicated to it. This applies even when the costs invested can't be recovered. More of a cognitive bias than anything.

* Real Life: Robert E. Lee at the Battle of Gettysburg. The Battle was lost but he continued to attack on the third day and ultimately broke the back of his army.
** This is very debatable. Historians have been arguing the point of whether the fight was winnable (and how much of an impact things he didn't know about like the problems with his cannons had) since the battle itself.

* Stephen Colbert, on TheColbertReport, summed it up quite succinctly when discussing the American dilemma of whether [[ColdBloodedTorture torture was justified]] since it helped to capture and kill a hated terrorist. Stephen's usual InsaneTrollLogic is applied to the point where, because America has already lost its beloved moral superiority by using torture, they have to ''keep'' torturing until it solves all of our problems, or:
--> "[[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/18/977051/-Brilliant-Stephen-Colbert-piece-on-renewed-torture-debate We must do whatever it takes to justify what we've already done.]]"
* Supporters of TheVietnamWar and [[TheWarOnTerror the U.S. occupation of Iraq]] said that unless the U.S. continued the wars, the lives of soldiers who'd already died there would be wasted.