Showing posts with label Gambling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gambling. Show all posts

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Pattern Seeking: Finding Order in Chaos
















































From yee Wiki:
Apophenia /æpˈfniə/ is the human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within random data.
The term apparently dates back to 1958, when Klaus Conrad published a monograph titled Die beginnende Schizophrenie. Versuch einer Gestaltanalyse des Wahns ("The onset of schizophrenia: an attempt to form an analysis of delusion"), in which he described in groundbreaking detail the prodromal mood and earliest stages of schizophrenia. He coined the word "Apophänie" to characterize the onset of delusional thinking in psychosis. Conrad's theories on the genesis of schizophrenia have since been partially, yet inconclusively, confirmed in psychiatric literature when tested against empirical findings.
Conrad's neologism was translated into English as "apophenia" (from the Greek apo [away from] + phaenein [to show]) to reflect the fact that a person with schizophrenia initially experiences delusion as revelation.
In 2001 neuroscientist Peter Brugger referenced Conrad's terminology and defined the term as the "unmotivated seeing of connections" accompanied by a "specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness."
Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling.















Thursday, October 25, 2012

Michael Levin: Why Is Everyone on Wall Street So Rich? You Have No Idea





John C. Bogle is mad as hell and won't take it anymore, or at least as mad as hell as a dignified,

Bible- and Churchill-quoting octogenarian can be. Born just months before the stock market crash of 1929, and the godfather of the mutual fund industry, Bogle is deeply unhappy about how speculators have hijacked the financial markets and kicked investors to Wall Street's famously unforgiving curb.

Bogle writes about this clash of cultures between investors and speculators in a new book titled, fittingly enough, The Clash of the Cultures: Investment vs. Speculation (John Wiley & Sons, $29.95). He demonstrates, in sprightly if mournful tones, that the average share of stock was traded once every seven years when his career started back in 1951 and is now traded every four months. Wall Street is supposed to be about allocating wealth to businesses so they can create jobs and do all those things Romney keeps talking about. Instead, it's just a big casino, and it doesn't even have Celine Dion or a buffet.

The book is a gem. Well-researched and carefully argued, there's simply no way to argue with Bogle's premises -- that the little guy always loses, that the more you churn the more you lose, that most people's retirements are dramatically underfunded, that management looks out for itself and not the stockholders, and that greed is driving the bus. The book ends with a compelling pitch for Bogle's own Wellington Fund, demonstrating that the author is clearly a salesman to the last.

But you have to ask this question: If Bogle were 33 instead of 83, would he have written this book? Or would he instead have written a series of tweets collapsing the same material that takes 363 pages into a few hundred syllables?

The broader question is this: If you have something to say today, why bother writing a book? Why not just post a blog piece somewhere, or tweet something, or stick something on your Facebook page? Or even just have somebody hold up an iPhone and make a video you can upload to YouTube?

I doubt Bogle tweets. He's the kind of person who takes deep pleasure in a well-crafted sentence or argument. He shows his work, as my sons' fourth grade math teachers demand. To use his own terms, the reader is fully invested in his beliefs and there is no room for speculation. In short, he is the master of a dying art.

His book also reveals a second, deeper culture clash in our society today: the gulf between people who have ideas and people who have no idea. About 97% of the population basically made a commitment, around the time they reached their early 20s, never to learn another thing as long as they lived. By that point, they knew how to drive, how to use an ATM, how to date, and how to hold a basic job. But the idea of actually cracking a book that wasn't on a final was foreign. Learning stuff you don't need to know? What a bore. What a colossal waste of time.

That leaves around three percent of society, the people who love learning for its own sake, the intellectual and cultural and financial elite, the people who would actually pick up a Bogle book and read it cover to cover. The problem is that these folks (you among them, of course) are, sad to say, not just a slender minority but a dying breed.

Bogle epitomizes clear thinking and organized writing, the intelligent marshaling of facts, opinion, and personal experience into a sustained work of prose that transforms the way readers think. The problem is that fewer and fewer people have the attention spans, the time, or the interest to follow an author down a long passageway and actually learn something.

The barbarians aren't just at the gates of Wall Street, Mr. Bogle. They're everywhere.

When I lived in Boston 25 years ago, there was an older European gentleman who worked as a clerk in Filene's Basement. Once I found a sport jacket that almost fit and I asked him if he knew a tailor who could turn my bargain into sartorial splendor.

"They're all dead," he sighed.

Real readers, and real writers, are going the way of those long-departed tailors.

Read Bogle, not just to learn about how to protect your investments and understand what really happens on Wall Street. But more than that, read The Clash Of The Cultures and declare yourself into the three percent who have ideas and aren't afraid to use them.

Thursday, July 5, 2012

The Thorpophile:Making Millions the Easy Way




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbjB2aO04lg

The Thorpophile: The Quants Book Review

Ed Thorp's Genius Detailed In Scott Patterson's 'The Quants'

 

Feb 05, 2010
Bill Freehling

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Risk vs. Uncertainty

Risk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Risk is the potential that a chosen action or activity (including the choice of inaction) will lead to a loss (an undesirable outcome). The notion implies that a choice having an influence on the outcome exists (or existed). Potential losses themselves may also be called "risks". Almost any human endeavor carries some risk, but some are much more risky than others.

Risk versus uncertainty:

In his seminal work Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Frank Knight established the distinction between risk and uncertainty.

Uncertainty must be taken in a sense radically distinct from the familiar notion of Risk, from which it has never been properly separated. The term "risk," as loosely used in everyday speech and in economic discussion, really covers two things which, functionally at least, in their causal relations to the phenomena of economic organization, are categorically different. The essential fact is that "risk" means in some cases a quantity susceptible of measurement, while at other times it is something distinctly not of this character; and there are far-reaching and crucial differences in the bearings of the phenomenon depending on which of the two is really present and operating. It will appear that a measurable uncertainty, or "risk" proper, as we shall use the term, is so far different from an unmeasurable one that it is not in effect an uncertainty at all. We accordingly restrict the term "uncertainty" to cases of the non-quantitive type.”


Thus, Knightian uncertainty is immeasurable, not possible to calculate, while in the Knightian sense risk is measurable.

Another distinction between risk and uncertainty is proposed in How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business and The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It by Doug Hubbard:

Uncertainty: The lack of complete certainty, that is, the existence of more than one possibility. The "true" outcome/state/result/value is not known.

Measurement of uncertainty: A set of probabilities assigned to a set of possibilities. Example: "There is a 60% chance this market will double in five years"

Risk: A state of uncertainty where some of the possibilities involve a loss, catastrophe, or other undesirable outcome.
Measurement of risk: A set of possibilities each with quantified probabilities and quantified losses.
Example: "There is a 40% chance the proposed oil well will be dry with a loss of $12 million in exploratory drilling costs".

In this sense, Hubbard uses the terms so that one may have uncertainty without risk but not risk without uncertainty. We can be uncertain about the winner of a contest, but unless we have some personal stake in it, we have no risk. If we bet money on the outcome of the contest, then we have a risk. In both cases there are more than one outcome. The measure of uncertainty refers only to the probabilities assigned to outcomes, while the measure of risk requires both probabilities for outcomes and losses quantified for outcomes.

Risk attitude, appetite and tolerance:

The terms attitude, appetite and tolerance are often used similarly to describe an organization's or individual's attitude towards risk taking. Risk averse, risk neutral and risk seeking are examples of the terms that may be used to describe a risk attitude. Risk tolerance looks at acceptable/unacceptable deviations from what is expected. Risk appetite looks at how much risk one is willing to accept. There can still be deviations that are within a risk appetite.

Gambling is a risk-increasing investment, wherein money on hand is risked for a possible large return, but with the possibility of losing it all. Purchasing a lottery ticket is a very risky investment with a high chance of no return and a small chance of a very high return. In contrast, putting money in a bank at a defined rate of interest is a risk-averse action that gives a guaranteed return of a small gain and precludes other investments with possibly higher gain. The possibility of getting no return on an investment is also known as the Rate of Ruin.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Fortune's Formula and Dr. Edward O. Thorp

One of the most entertaining popular science books I've read is Fortune's Formula by William Poundstone. The book covers the advent of information theory, and statistics, and how Edward O. Thorp teamed with scientists like Claude Shannon and John Kelly Jr. to gain an edge in gambling and the stock market. Shannon and Thorp invented the world's first wearable computer in the early sixties in an attempt to predict the outcomes of random roulette wheel spins. The astounding Thorp then used computers to determine a favorable edge for a player in Blackjack with a sucessful card-counting system. He used John Kelly Jr.'s Kelly Critereon,  the best way to bet so as to geometrically grow your bankroll with the least risk. He went public and wrote the classic gambling book Beat the Dealer that revealed the system. After this, Thorp went into the stock market game and found a way to arbitrage convertible bonds and warrents. Once again, he revealed all with Beat the Market, which defied the efficent market hypothesis, and became the bible for future "quants." As a result of Mr. Poundstone's book I became fascinated with all things Thorp, collecting his books, magazine articles, and even his autograph (thanks to eBay).

Fortune's Formula by William Poundstone