There's an entire income/asset range where the former isn't enough to justify passing up the latter. E.g. if you already have $3M+ in the bank, the marginal utility of that extra million is starting to diminish.
Now, a roll with a decent chance at $1B sounds much better.
And, flip side, if you have almost no money and almost no experience, you might also take the first one - because it leaves you with a 100% marketable set of skills that'll likely translate into much more than 1M.
If you have $3M in the bank then you are already a millionaire and the choice as framed above doesn't make sense anymore. It's not a 70% chance of being a millionaire—it's a 100% chance of being one already with a 70% chance of making another million which, as you say, looks a lot different to somebody who already has $3M than to somebody who has < $1M.
No, I don't think we are in full agreement. In the part of my comment after "as you say", I did call out that her reasoning re: the marginal utility of $1M for someone who has $3M vs. ~$0 is (imo) correct, so we do have that common ground, but you ought to read the part of my comment before "as you say" and compare it to the context of the comments above it.
You might accuse me of splitting hairs, but I think it's an important distinction in the context of vkou's comment and parents.
I actively look for sales of car washes, laundromats, and other such businesses.
Most of the time it’s more than the amount of money I’d have, and I’d have to get lucky to make the numbers work to even break even. And I’d only have one shot.
I don’t know which deals you’re finding but everything I find is more than just a 70/30 risk.
Literally anyone in the world will take the first deal.