meninges

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by meninges 14y ago

   I throw 100 dice 10 times and 2 of them come up 6 every time, i pick them up and call them survivors. Then i throw these 2 survivors 10 times and one of them again comes up 6 everytime - to me its worth the effort to figure out why, regardl
2. 2.▲
   by meninges 14y ago

   Markets have many inefficiencies of varying persistence that don't depend on insider knowledge, speed advantages, or cheating, but using simple widely available public information, some on just the price itself. I think it doesn't validate
3. 3.▲
   by meninges 14y ago

   Reading back, i actually agree with you on most points. It just seems that you're searching for some sort of 'fairness' in a 'system' where it doesn't really exist. Just would like to add a distinction that EMH seems to hold from a retail c
4. 4.▲
   by meninges 14y ago

   We are talking here at such high level abstractions and with stack of presuppositions that it's difficult for me to figure out just where to even begin explaining my point and i question if i even should. If one doesn't know of a 'sure fire
5. 5.▲
   by meninges 14y ago

   Proving that EMH is false requires revelation of a profitable method or at least a statistically significant edge, which then makes it vulnerable to getting exploited away. It's actually more useful if the public believes in EMH and in trad