3 ms·

This is a low quality article, making some facile analogies between gambling and starting businesses and pursuing a stand-up comedy career (huh?) It would be b

by chubot 5y ago

This is a low quality article, making some facile analogies between gambling and starting businesses and pursuing a stand-up comedy career (huh?) It would be better if they unpacked this sentence, but it stops there: There’s a difference between gambling, trading and building your own business but there are also similarities. I also recall Norm MacDonald saying that some regulation against online poker "saved him", because he was playing all night and couldn't sleep. So he was clearly a gambling addict, and it doesn't help to draw bad analogies. Comedy is risky, but it's also a constructive pursuit. RIP.

killjoywashere 5y ago
I mean, at least I learned the name of Jesse Livermore.
- chubot 5y ago
  That anecdote reminded me of Taleb's book "Fooled by Randomness". There are a bunch of people in the book who seemed successful and then "blew up", losing everything. One of them was a Harvard squash player / hedge fund guy as far as I remember. This seems like an extreme example of that, going from $100M to $10K and then committing suicide. It's a story that repeats itself throughout history. Taleb's argument is that those people were never skilled -- they were lucky. It is possible to "win" for 20 years mostly based on luck. Also he would probably argue (harshly) that at least this person accepted their consequences. These days the person who loses $100M based on an unsound trading strategy can socialize their losses.
  - hallway_monitor 5y ago
    The trick to being lucky in my opinion is quit while you're ahead. If you have a hundred million for God's sake pull ten out and keep it in a safe place.
    - e9 5y ago
      That wouldn’t have helped Livermore because he was trading on margin.
  - arthurcolle 5y ago
    > a Harvard squash player / hedge fund guy as far as I remember. you might be thinking of Victor Niederhoffer.
paulpauper 5y ago
agree. not good. obviously trying to cash in on the Norm MacDonald death for some page views, in which case he succeeded.

by chubot 5y ago

killjoywashere 5y ago

I mean, at least I learned the name of Jesse Livermore.

chubot 5y ago
That anecdote reminded me of Taleb's book "Fooled by Randomness". There are a bunch of people in the book who seemed successful and then "blew up", losing everything. One of them was a Harvard squash player / hedge fund guy as far as I remember. This seems like an extreme example of that, going from $100M to $10K and then committing suicide. It's a story that repeats itself throughout history. Taleb's argument is that those people were never skilled -- they were lucky. It is possible to "win" for 20 years mostly based on luck. Also he would probably argue (harshly) that at least this person accepted their consequences. These days the person who loses $100M based on an unsound trading strategy can socialize their losses.
- hallway_monitor 5y ago
  The trick to being lucky in my opinion is quit while you're ahead. If you have a hundred million for God's sake pull ten out and keep it in a safe place.
  - e9 5y ago
    That wouldn’t have helped Livermore because he was trading on margin.
- arthurcolle 5y ago
  > a Harvard squash player / hedge fund guy as far as I remember. you might be thinking of Victor Niederhoffer.

paulpauper 5y ago

agree. not good. obviously trying to cash in on the Norm MacDonald death for some page views, in which case he succeeded.