= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Say More, Justify Less - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (25)
In regards to checking the quality of predictions-- this may be harder than it sounds because it requires understanding underlying conditions.
I've heard a plausible theory that investors can look better than they are-- for a while-- if their temperament or theories happen to match the way the market is going.
A poker player using optimal play can still have a long run of bad luck.
How long are we talking exactly? Long runs of bad (or good) luck are rather improbable!
Two and a half years. I don't know that he's using optimal strategy, but I'm assuming that he's at least competent.
Long runs of bad luck are improbable, but there are a lot of poker players and they're playing a lot of games.
I've seen enough mentions of runs of bad luck which last for months that I felt it was reasonable to make my previous comment. On the other hand, googling turns up relatively little on the subject, so I'm lowering my estimate of the probability.
Whenever anyone talks about a run of bad luck lasting that long, I assume that they've shifted their threshold such that ordinarily luck is no longer good enough.
It's also possible that they aren't playing as well.
It seems as though someone should have done the math on the likelihood of very long stretches of bad luck in poker, but a casual search didn't turn anything up.