(In practice, except possibly for heads-up limit hold’em, good players are still better than the best bots published in the academic literature anyway.)
This is an interesting observation, but probably not that surprising: if you had a superior poker bot that was consistently profitable, why on earth would you publish it?
Generalizing, if someone working at a bank or hedge fund developed a superior theory of economics, and that theory could be used to make money through trading, why would they tell anyone else about it? Once the knowledge became public, it would no longer be profitable.
This made me think of a sports gambling database and strategy set that I read about in an ESPN magazine at a barber shop. I don’t remember the specifics but I recall that the database was shared by invitation only and had an intentional “barrier to entry” level buy in, which seemed high to me. The article claimed the database was in use by only 9 professional gamblers. I’d like to see some performance data on their bets.
This is an interesting observation, but probably not that surprising: if you had a superior poker bot that was consistently profitable, why on earth would you publish it?
Generalizing, if someone working at a bank or hedge fund developed a superior theory of economics, and that theory could be used to make money through trading, why would they tell anyone else about it? Once the knowledge became public, it would no longer be profitable.
This is the evil corollary of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (that all publicly available information is instantly incorporated into market prices).
This made me think of a sports gambling database and strategy set that I read about in an ESPN magazine at a barber shop. I don’t remember the specifics but I recall that the database was shared by invitation only and had an intentional “barrier to entry” level buy in, which seemed high to me. The article claimed the database was in use by only 9 professional gamblers. I’d like to see some performance data on their bets.