Despite many theories and alogorithms for decision-making, after estimating the utility function the choice is usually made by maximising its expected value (the max EU principle). This traditional and 'rational' conclusion of the decision-making process is compared in this paper with several 'irrational' techniques that make choice in Monte-Carlo fashion. The comparison is made by evaluating the performance of simple decision-theoretic agents in stochastic environments. It is shown that not only the random choice strategies can achieve performance comparable to the max EU method, but under certain conditions the Monte-Carlo choice methods perform almost two times better than the max EU. The paper concludes by quoting evidence from recent cognitive modelling works as well as the famous decision-making paradoxes
