Correct me if the history I am using here is wrong, but anyway:
Japanese pilots often voluntarily chose not to wear parachutes. It’s a riskier proposition with an increased chance of not surviving an air battle. But it meant that they could maneuver much more easily while in air, hence greater reward for greater risk taken. An American, pilot on the other hand, had the personal preference of valuing his life more, and didn’t mind keeping a parachute handy just in case he had to bail out. He did affect his movements more through this decision, and could not make the quick maneuvers needed to make decisions that could make a big difference in a matter of a few seconds. Hence less risk, for less reward.
However, since the decision of having to bear more risk per unit of time was taken by the Japanese pilot, he would be less prone to take additional risks, and would be more restrained in his attacks, knowing that he does not have the option of bailing out in anything he did, and would hence not push an attack further than he needed to. Whereas the American pilot could take the battle to the enemy as far as he needed to, knowing that he had the option of bailing out at any point of time. So the American pilot hence is able to afford more risk for more reward.
So ultimately, increase in risk still involves less net benefit, even with greater rewards per risk, while reducing risk, brings greater net benefit. So without all the tools of risk management that we employ, like savings accounts, insurance, housing equity, fixed income securities.etc, we are hence able to take greater risks with riskier investments that give us greater rewards in life. By no means do they reduce or limit our potential gains.
But is there a thing such as playing too safe, which can have not net benefits, but rather net costs?