You don't understand the difference between enjoying something and making an incorrectly being able to analyze what you would enjoy more?
I don't understand. Guess something got lost in editing here. Could you please complete or rephrase this?
You were tricked into thinking that you are getting a raw deal. The same reason why my other two situations, you might think you are being abused even more, or not abused at all, just because someone worded it slightly different.
I claim that those other two situations are actually different, and the fact that they reduce to the same mathematical model only attests to the insufficiency of the model for these applications. The anchor you establish with the initial claims makes it a morally different situation.
You may go to further extremes: imagine that I sue you for bogus claims but you can't afford a proper defense. I offer to settle for all your stuff minus one dollar. You can refuse, but let's imagine that the legal system in your country is broken enough that in that case you lose *all* of your money to legal expenses. If we stick to money, the Nash equilibrium is the same. Is this the same situation, only camouflaged to trick you into feeling more ripped off? Would you still give me all the money but one dollar?