Either way, I'd certainly prefer the drug test over a coin flip.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that we determine whether you are using drugs by flipping a coin.

The point is that once you separate the people into "passed drug test," and "failed drug test" you can point to the people in the "failed drug test" group and say "about half of these people used drugs."

Are we close to game theory soccer trends now?

New soccer skill that feels like bluffing, semibluffing and GTO value betting LAG style.

Forwards have always played a LAG style. No value betting, just go all in every pot.

Good sole and heel dribbling in that video.

At least they showed one save.

It is value betting because when it works they gain a new position from where the win probability is enhanced (win=score). See what i mean? The value betting sense is in the times the confusion works in the direction he wanted (with defender failing to anticipate it) to then be positioned to score a bit later or advance the ball to others in good spots to do so etc. The scoring is not the bet that is called, the scoring is the HU full match win so to speak (not the pot won, the pot won is the enhanced "tournament" equity obtained when the value betting works)). Think of chips gained when the position of the attacking team improves (higher probability to now score = higher equity) to be able to then score. So it is value betting because they get called in the equivalent sense (defender neutralized my making the wrong choice reaction) and they need to be "called" for it to work (opponent buys what they are selling). Call here may be the conviction the ball is going elsewhere which then allows them to get the advantage to do the other things. The bluffing is the confusion creation left right up down etc that may or may not work, the semibluffing is when the bluff fails but the rebound is a possibility the way it was played upfront so he could win anyway even then when the "bluff" fails to get them to "fold". I think the analogy is remarkable if you see it from the right angle/perspective.

Think of it like the old soccer game (or even more so the game kids play) was more TAG ABC style game vs the emergence of a more unpredictable and therefore lucrative when it works LAG style of attack (that can be also seen in how the attacking team exchanges passes in unconventional manner sometimes ie the attack is all over the place so to speak making it less straightforward/predictable so an imaginative non conventional game). All those things of course up to a point, beyond which direct ABC play is inevitable (and too many fancy things are pointless noise). Think of examples like say the advancing player gets some defenders convinced to react a particular way and lose attention to the fact that a new position for other players has emerged(or emerging) who eventually when(if) they get the ball can score a lot easier than the initial attacker that attracted all the attention and persuasion but had other plans in mind than scoring himself from a tougher position.

I'm just cranky because you didn't post something about reaction saves.

Living well below you means to minimize downside risk is impossible as an dominate strategy for society. To note: strategy involves accumulation of money to protect to the downside. Unfortunately, to reduce risk (without actually getting efficient) you need to transfer that risk to someone else erg. "living well below you means" cannot be a dominant strategy across the population. As to this example - accumulation of money is only possible if there is an other side to give you that money and "over consume". If everyone is efficient no one would want to transfer that money to the other agent.

This implies (also) that there is no government strategy to minimize systematic risk and better yourself without making some other country worse off.... (energy sector for example)

Now accumulation of assets is a different thing, although you get additional cost for storage and spoilage in n time. That means you need to pay for that risk protection. Then there exist a dominant strategy that has n-1 protection that has smaller cost in aggregate and is more competitive now and will take a dominant position in the free market. Using transitive logic the equilibrium is put at n=0 protection and somewhat a tragedy of the commons occurs where systematic risk is a common risk.

Any objections?

Interesting stuff though that word efficiency always scares me.

Why cant some amount of living above means, minimize systematic risk?

probably should, usually it's the equivalent of saying there is no EV....

systematic risk = inverse to how much downside volatility you can sustain.... (before margin call )

living above means = spending more then producing -> no room for downside volatility

Why cant we live above our means with the ability to live further above our means

say we could choose to live 5% above our means or 10% above. 5% has less systematic risk because if things go badly we can shift to 10% beyond for a while whereas 10% beyond has nowhere to go.

I don't understand

and if 10% goes badly? this is like martingale, what you are saying

systematic risk = aggregate risk

No martingale.

If you aim to live 5% above and say production drops then if you can survive 10% you have some leeway to reducing spending and/or increase production until you get back to 5%. If you start at 10% and have no leeway then you're ****ed.

So 10% could have more systematic risk than 5%

???

you borrow to repay obligations and if **** hits the fan you double down and borrow some more?

there is always risk of you not being able to increase production. After all if you could do it why pay the interest now on the 5% expense you need to borrow at the first place. Better yet why not have a surplus and be the creditor....

So 10% could have more systematic risk than 5%[/QUOTE] ldo

No, I never suggested borrowing any more.

Correct and the more reliably you need production to increase (or not decrease) the more risk you have.

Indeed. Now why cant we try to minimise it? We dont want to live so far above pur means that were ****ed if anything at all goes against us and we dont want so far above our means that the risk of hurting future production outweighs the risk of getting ****ed.

this is so confusing....

Its probably semantic.

Suppose the UK borrows enough to spend 5% above what it produces. On Wednesay night there is an earthquake (literal or metaphorical) and production drops significantly. Immediately we are now living above our means by 10% and we respond by using our leeway to hang in there until production comes back on line. We might have to cut spending (or we could borrow more) but everything gradually returns to the normal 5%

Now suppose we have no leeway. Loans are called in, not rolled over etc etc the earthquake causes a major economic crises, credit crunch etc.

that's only for t=0; for t=1 to n UK has already spend that 5% leeway in advance and is borrowing for past obligations, so there is no leeway..... (it's similar everywhere - you are borrowing to pay obligations do (fridge broking down), not to have cash laying around and spending it little by little)

Not all of it some may be for new investments.

but the leeway is in how others will react. If we have maxed out then loans will be called in and not rolled over, those with easily movable assets will move tghem out of the country etc etc If we haven't maxed out then there is less risk they will do that.

Also the UK could borrow a lot of extra money and spend it on 3rd world aid (or parties or something else that is almost production neutral in the UK). Are you saying howver much they did that it would make no difference to the systematic risk?

you have a bigger chance of rolling over by having a lower debt/GDP, maxing out loans does not exist. UK issues debt as needed there is no limit imposed for cash on balance....

no, there is no government strategy to minimize systematic risk without the risk transfer ,but to maximize it there are a lot of interesting things.....

oh well i tried. i dont know what you mean
UK can only issue debt if someone is willing to take it up. It isn't without limit

You can say creditors and those with movable assets dont care how much we are spending above production. Just seems like its obviously untrue and that over-ambitious spending in the hope of future production increases systematic risk.

Cutting back spending on non-productive things can make creditors etc less concerned. Less concerned creditors etc means less systemic risk

Anyway i probably just dont understand what you're saying. I tried a bit.

Its probably me I view this stuff differently than seems conventional. I'd put it that when we spend more than we have we are borrowing from the future and the more we do it the more risk the future wont be able to pay the bill (and there is also risk in doing it too little). Plus as I think keynes said, evntually we are all dead.

didn't say that (there is no limit imposed for cash on balance)

didn't say that 2

you are simply reducing the risk you have created. If you ramp deficit and add additional 13% risk of default and then cut 10% risk by cutting back spending you surly didn't minimize risk....

sure, you can reduce risk ,but only the one you have artificially created in the first place...

Not sure what you said.

you may have minimised risk. If you had had more risk you might not now have the opportunity to ramp deficit and make other adjustments.

dont know what artificial means here. Risk is not linear and there is a dangerous area (credit crunch,asset runs etc) where you cannot simply reduce risk - the **** has hit the fan.

**** have i messed up.

I think I've confused minimising the risk of disaster with minimising the risk you take. Should be the maximim risk you can take.

Not sure if that helps. going to lie down. Have the painters in (not a euphemism)

Omg omg omg! I'm getting paid to do research!

I'm waiting to hear back from my professor on the spec's of the equipment options I have before I make a thread (if that's a good idea, I know I'm a pretty horrible poster), but am really excited and so am typing randomly to strangers.

I have to design my study myself, what measurements I'm taking, and so forth -- and am completely intimidated by the situation because I've never done any research at all (aside from labs).

The prof's speciality is micro-climate -- which I'm not interested in at all (my option is in water systems) -- but figured I could make some general climate observations which would help me in the future because climate change research is so big right now (not that I'm interested in that either, but think it would look good on my resume).

If anyone has any suggestions for books or other resources that will get me some idea of how to actually design a study (simple study because my math is ****e, and I guess it's pretty informal, prof said half a page, I think it's more just so he knows I'm not just ****ing around) I would really appreciate it.I know it will take place in a forest, (as he does forest micro-climate I guess), but can't think of anything else. ok Thanks bye!

Make the thread now while the project (at least as far as you are involved?) is still in its infancy. I'm sure that alone would get plenty of responses but even better you could periodically update said thread over time and take us (SMP) through the process / project you are about to embark on and discuss it. If you play your cards right (pics are a plus: check out a similar thread made by Zeno who (iirc) drilled wells to get water samples for research or science or a paycheck or w/e) you could easily be the creator of the best thread SMP has seen in ~6months.