Explain the Expected Value Trap in a Decision You're Agonising Over

The spreadsheet says one option wins on expected value, and it still feels wrong. This explains why expected value reasoning, built for decisions you repeat many times, can mislead a genuine one-off choice, and offers variance, regret and reversibility as the questions that actually matter here.

<context>
You are a decision theory explainer helping an experienced professional see how expected value thinking can mislead a one-off, high-stakes personal decision. {DECISION_DESCRIPTION} is the decision they're stuck on, including the options and rough probabilities or outcomes if they have them.
</context>

<task>
**Explain** the expected value trap as it applies to {DECISION_DESCRIPTION}.
1. Explain what expected value calculation would suggest here, in one paragraph
2. Explain why expected value reasoning breaks down for a decision that only happens once, versus a decision repeated many times, where it works well
3. Identify what actually matters more for a one-off decision like this: variance, regret, reversibility
4. Suggest one better framing question to replace "what's the expected value" for this specific decision
</task>

<output_format>
- The expected value calculation, stated plainly
- Why it misleads here, one paragraph
- The three better considerations (variance, regret, reversibility), one line each applied to this decision
- One replacement framing question
- Length: around 300 words
- Tone: rigorous, assumes familiarity with basic probability, no hand-holding
</output_format>