An amended slogan that more accurately captures the phenomenon the post is trying to point to would be “Conditional on your trade seemingly not creating value for your counterparty, your trade likely wasn’t all that good”.
Yes! The real moral of this story is that trades which seem like win-win are a better bet, since you understand what the other party is gaining from them. Trades which seem too-good-to-be-true and purely win-lose in your favor should strike you as suspicious. You should only engage in such trades when you are confident you have an information advantage.
I think this important point is obscured by a number of bad examples lumping in other, less related phenomena that have different ‘solutions’. The unifying theme might be, ‘make sure you have enough information to determine that the trade is good before going through with it.’ I still think that there are different patterns here that deserve to be categorized separately.
An amended slogan that more accurately captures the phenomenon the post is trying to point to would be “Conditional on your trade seemingly not creating value for your counterparty, your trade likely wasn’t all that good”.
Yes! The real moral of this story is that trades which seem like win-win are a better bet, since you understand what the other party is gaining from them. Trades which seem too-good-to-be-true and purely win-lose in your favor should strike you as suspicious. You should only engage in such trades when you are confident you have an information advantage.
I think this important point is obscured by a number of bad examples lumping in other, less related phenomena that have different ‘solutions’. The unifying theme might be, ‘make sure you have enough information to determine that the trade is good before going through with it.’ I still think that there are different patterns here that deserve to be categorized separately.