3 ms·

"Long period of time" and "50 years" aren't really the same thing in my book. You can get lucky for awhile. At some point it stops being luck. I'm not sure wher

"Long period of time" and "50 years" aren't really the same thing in my book. You can get lucky for awhile. At some point it stops being luck. I'm not sure where that line is, but I am confident though that Buffett has crossed it. I'd be willing to bet you'd have a hard time finding anybody credible that would say what Buffett has done is just luck, which is exactly what you are claiming. Once we accept that he isn't just a lucky guy, EMH is disproven.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> You can get lucky for awhile. At some point it stops being luck. No, it doesn't. There is no length of a run that cannot be luck. If you have a quantifiable expected distribution of results, you can say how improbable it is that you would see a run of a particular size in a given sized universe of data, but the fact that such a run exists in the data doesn't prove that its not luck. > I'd be willing to bet you'd have a hard time finding anybody credible that would say what Buffett has done is just luck, which is exactly what you are claiming. Er, no, its not what I'm claiming. In fact, I'm highly skeptical about EMH, to the point of having said that there is no particular reason (except for known-to-be-false assumptions) to assume that it should be true. On the other hand, I am saying that the claims that it is "disproven" by the existence of runs like Buffet's overstate the degree to which the EMH is even falsifiable.