Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32
I expect the common answer, if you get one, to be: don't even bother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gangip
always hobbies you could have that are more fun than losing at a repetitive math game,
I've heard this theme many times that you can't be profitable because you can't beat machines. My thought on that is of course you can't beat the machines if you are playing their game. It's not reasonable to expect that a human can do what a machine does better than the machine. I do think it's reasonable to assume that there are niches one can discover that can prove to be profitable though.
I'm guessing the general consensus is that worse players can not have an edge vs better players (everyone playing their "A" game). For instance, if I sit at a poker table with a bunch of players that are better than me then I shouldn't be +EV right? Well, if I approach the game the same way as them, and think about the game like they think about it and take lines similar to the lines they take then I absolutely would be -EV in that game. However, if I play a style that is entirely unique and think about the game in a way that they have never thought about it then I can actually create an edge vs these better players thanks to information asymmetry. If I play with them enough they will eventually figure out how I play and adjust accordingly making me -EV in the game. Although, in live poker figuring this out could take quite a long time, and could potentially never be fully understood by the better players due to limited sample size.
If one was to discover an edge, an exploit, or a niche in trading and/or investing and this person made a nice return would the other traders even know this person existed and if they did wouldn't they just chalk it up to lol variance?
Last edited by Dream Crusher; 01-06-2019 at 03:25 AM.
Reason: grammar