 Laplace’s classical interpretation was deemed defective with respect to admissibility, because it suffers from the difficulty known as “Bertrand’s paradox”, which applies to problems involving an infinite range of possibilities, in which case the classical definition can lead to conflicting probability values. Salmon also considered the subjective interpretation, according to which probability “is simply a measure of degree of belief”, to be inadmissible (Salmon 1967a: 68). Salmon dealt separately with the interpretation he called personalistic, which he attributed to Savage. The distinctive feature of this approach—matching what is meant by the subjective interpretation today – is that it appeals to the betting scheme in order to determine probability values, and imposes coherence on systems of bets. Salmon claimed that the personalistic outlook satisfies the criteria of admissibility and ascertainability, but does not comply with applicability because it