Tom eagerly accepts the bet. He reasons that winning and losing are equally likely. “If I lose, then I lose the value of my necktie. But if I win, then I win

*more*than the value of my necktie. Therefore this bet is ultimately to my advantage!”

Michael is eager to accept the bet as well... since he reasons in exactly the same way.

Either guy's reasoning seems sound, yet they cannot

**both**have the advantage in the bet! Where is the fault?

**Details:**For a fair bet you'd expect both guys to have a 50% chance of winning it (100% together). In the extreme case where one guy would have a 100% chance of winning, it can only follow that the other guy has 0% chance, i.e. no chance at all. So that's why they can't both have the advantage (= a chance bigger than 50%).