“Removed.”
AaronF
Karma: 29
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
Here is Ole Peters: [Puzzle] “Voluntary insurance contracts constitute a puzzle because they increase the expectation value of one party’s wealth, whereas both parties must sign for such contracts to exist [Answer]: Time averages and expectation values differ because wealth changes are non-ergodic.”
Peters again: “Conceptually, its power derives from a new notion of rationality. Many reasonable models of wealth are non-stationary processes. Observables representing wealth then do not have the ergodic property of Section I, and therefore rationality must not be defined as maximizing expectation values of wealth. Rather, we propose as a null model to define rationality as maximizing the time-average growth of wealth.”
You write: “Kelly betting, on the other hand, assumes a finite bankroll—and indeed, might have to be abandoned or adjusted to handle negative money.” [Negative Interest rate?] Can you explain more? Would love to fit this conceptually into Peter’s Non-ergodic growth rate theory
My basic and primitive understanding (From Taleb Etc.) is that there are a few ideas that are important; such as ergodicity; at least when trading in a complex market and why you should follow Kelly criterion. Also, fat tails etc.
But when I did the research like you, it seemed quite sparse.
Literature is rife with individual stresses and anxiety, people don’t really talk much about ecological stressors. Even if you are resilient, the environment plays a part in productivity.
“During the recent COVID-19 pandemic, traditional (offline) chess tournaments were prohibited and instead held online. We exploit this as a unique setting to assess the impact of moving offline tasks online on the cognitive performance of individuals...Our results suggest that teleworking might have adverse effects on workers performing cognitive tasks. KEY: A crucial difference to the offline setting is that the peer pressure to concentrate in a playing hall is missing. For instance, Falk and Ichino (2006) find that students place letters in envelopes at a higher speed when other students are faced with the same task sit in the room.”
Retracted
My understanding of CF is that to dismantle it, you first need to come up with a reason why the fence is there. Nearly any reason will do.
Example: Old rule: do not castrate animals.
People just discard this rule as obviously vapid. Yet the question remains, why does the rule exist in the first place? What changed?
If the counterparty can’t elucidate “any” reason, well I know the conversation is going to be futile.
I find the rule very helpful.
While doing my research before buying LED lights, I came across 405 nm light. All he caveats of OP apply. Seems the companies are using hydrogen peroxide vapour.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5429381/
″ Fairness ” In RED. This seems implausible. Notice. Opportunity to be heard.
I highly doubt you forgot that.
Fair. I removed it.