But I think you can go further - it's lazy logic that pretends Corbyn/NotCorbyn is a binary.
/1
/2
/3
/4
... shouldn't you be risk-averse?
/5
(i) low-stakes gamble where either Lab/Con end up leading coalitions w v small majorities
(ii) high-stakes gamble where you could win big with rolling 2-6's, but Corbyn ends up sole majority on a lot of other results
shouldn't you be (i)?
/6