Did not realise i was inadvertently following the Meyers-Farrington law when monomaniacally stacking sats 🤙
First off i want to say how awesome Damus is whereby it doesn’t forcefully drag me back to Home Screen when i have this tweet/event open to come back to later.
If i understand correctly though, by your calculations, doesn’t Peter’s strategy have a greater expected value payoff? I would argue that that is perhaps a better metric than proportion of market-beaters in the portfolio
no, almost certainly not, and that’s the highly counterintuitive part. Peter gets *more* outliers but their impact in the portfolio is diluted by being wrong about them at the base rate. Nancy only ever invests in outliers, *because* she knows how to avoid failures perfectly.
the only way Peter could beat Nancy is essentially by sheer luck and tapping into an *extremely skewed* underlying distribution: i.e. there are one or two super duper pooper scooper extreme outliers that Nancy happens to miss because she is very picky, and Peter happens to get because he sprays and prays.
but if you think about it, this is essentially arguing for an index approach to outlier capture, which in turn solidifies that Peter has no relevant skill. it really is just luck, and entirely relatedly is extremely unlikely that Nancy would fail in this manner.
