The passage below is from Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.
The physician who prescribes the unusual treatment faces a substantial risk of regret, blame, and perhaps litigation. In hindsight, it will be easier to imagine the normal choice; the abnormal choice will be easy to undo. True, a good outcome will contribute to the reputation of the physician who dared, but the potential benefit is smaller than the potential cost because success is generally a more normal outcome than is failure.
In the bold faced part, I think, there seems to be a logical contradiction. What I want to ask is that if the chances of a successful outcome is bigger than a failed one, how come the potential benefit is smaller than the potential cost?