I am speaking of Erik Brooks, Jeff Yass's partner. Is there anyone here who thinks they would be favored over him trading options?

Donates 100% to Charity

GG

i'm curious what the point of this post is

Just sell out of the money options and it's gg. Just hope it doesn't blow up over the life of the competition.

I'm pretty sure the answer to this is "yes"

If I said yes, would you set something up?

No, but you're probably a fave because his book with math errors is required reading there.

I was just wondering if some people here had the audacity to think they could be favored over someone who was better than them at poker, had a 20 point IQ edge, had spent twenty years studying the subject, and the endeavor was highly technical. Anybody who could believe that, could never be convinced that guys with Eric's type of brain could quickly learn to surpass them in less obviously technical endeavors.

So why dont you make any final tables?

owned

other than poker this also describes LTCM, merton / scholes, finance academics, etc. all of them pretty much suck at real-world options pricing in the long-term when pitted against an opponent who only bets when he knows their models are wrong. perhaps this only happens 0.1% of the time -- but it obviously doesn't matter, b.c. the opponent is never forced to bet or post any ante. maybe SIG guys have learned to make very radical adjustments to their models for specific situations, but if anything, such an occurence would most likely be INVERSELY correlated with iq.

Most people with 130 IQs like to point to the real world incompetance of many ivory tower 170 IQs. Problem is they forget about the multi talented 150 IQs who can run circles around them. There is no inverse correlation. (I am of course using IQ scores as a stand in for intelligence, even if that is not really true.)

As far as your specific point, the intuitive fellow who spots the rare time the model is wrong, misses all the opportunities to make money exploiting small discrepancies between related options that can be middled.

The fact is that these guys turned 100K into well over a billion.

So do you just make these ******ed posts to try and act like a baller? It kinds of makes you look like a 60+ year old that has too much time on his hands.

edited to add: he's better then me in regards to the stock market, but I'd love to play him in FR cash. (same goes for you david....FR 2+2 table ftw?)

So you're just saying that you think highly of Eric Brooks or are you trying to somehow (as it seems) extrapolate this to yourself?

Neither. My OP was just one of hundreds of posts I've made over the years trying to persuade people that their misguided idea that the more mathemetically minded are not highly likely to be favored over the less mathematically minded, in almost endeavor, needs to be corrected. They get confused because even if the former is ten times more likely to succeed, they will be in the minority of success stories.

O/U on OP's IQ?

His IQ might be 375 for all I care .........but he just might be the biggest buffoon I have ever encountered.For a successful poker author and part owner of 2p2 it is truly amazing how he constantly makes a fool of himself with his moronic posts/threads.

Its bad enough dealing with the many idiots on most forums ......but David is truly in a league of his own.

while the above is almost 100% correct, i still disagree that the #1 mathematician in the world with his 17 nobel prizes has a higher chance of success 'in almost any endeavor' than a well-rounded 150-160 IQ. in the earlier post, i was not referring to 130s or anything below 150.

the problem for the 190 IQ mathematician is that many endeavors that reward iq also REQUIRE an understanding of one's own fallibility (the financial markets being #1 in this category by miles). it is much easier to attain a firm grasp of fallibility for a 150 IQ than it is for a 190 -- b.c. it is totally foreign for the 190 that any of his logical models are bound to experience semi-random and relatively frequent discontinuity. humans have resistance towards understanding fallibility (and a general propensity towards false confidence), so it is unlikely that even too many of the 150s will attain it, but the 190s basically have no chance.

sklansky,

why do you think it is that jeff yass likes to point out that the guys that make all the money aren't really super smart while the super phd quants make next to nothing? (he does single out jim simons as the only exception. if you happen to talk to him could you ask him why david shaw doesn't qualify? it's my impression that he's neither dumb/uneducated nor poor)

also, 1 billion? thats it?

So the point of this thread is to point out the fact that the OP doesn't understand the fact that knowing how to do something and actually doing it are very different? Yay.

sklansky,

im curious. do you think the 'mathematically minded' (no meaningful referent, sorry, but let's say it has one) are favorites to be the most proficient at convincing people they are favorites to be the most proficient at most things? as you contemplate that, i want you to consider just how much time and energy most people devote to the task of convincing others of their worth. a lot, amirite?

you're playing a game you're not very good at and one any rational person would realize he can't win. instead of making a thousand more posts on the subject, why not just accept that you're not changing anyone's set of personal values, especially given your modest talents at the art of persuasion. it's beyond futile.

oh, damn (see what i did, there?).

I'm sad DS ignored Yow's sick burn. I lol'ed.

From the many posts i've read by Yow, i think he's a prick....

but i did almost shi t myself reading that burn.

I said the same thing.

"Most people with 130 IQs like to point to the real world incompetance of many ivory tower 170 IQs. Problem is they forget about the multi talented 150 IQs who can run circles around them."

It's important to realize though that any problem related to a super high IQ relate to psychology only. If a well adjusted successful smart adult found a way to get even smarter he would also get richer. Period. (People who bring up super genuise's foibles seem to think this isn't the case.) Jeff is fully aware of this point so he hires those super genuises. If there was a pill that could make him one himself, I am sure he would take it. (I will admit though that such a pill would be dangerous if taken at too young an age)

I believe I am persuading many people. Just like I did regarding poker. The reason that isn't obvious is because, just like with poker, there are a small subset of vocal practitioners in various fields who realize the trouble they are in if it becomes widely known that studying math, logic, and probability, and other general thinking techniques, will have you surpassing dumber mediocrities with years of experience, as long as you have a year or so under your belt.

When I came to Vegas ther were scores of moderately talented, seat of their pants, poker pros. They all went broke when faced with the young studious smarter kids.

Same thing for Jeff Yass when he hit Philadelphia and faced seat of the pants options traders. They too went broke. (Someone metioned that nowadays the quants will get killed those few times their models don't apply. But what about in the days when only they knew about the models?)

Like the seargeants who refuse to believe that the young West Point graduates will quickly surpass them, there is that vocal group who can't admit I am right about this stuff. But there is also that silent group who is paying attention and learning the general skills of thinking I advocate. And that second group who is understanding that those kids are the ones they should hire.