Math and Computer Wizards Now Billionaires Thanks to Quant Trading | Hacker News Reader

Math and Computer Wizards Now Billionaires Thanks to Quant Trading

forbes.com

42 points6502nerdface14 comments

Please, let's stop with all the success bias. Let's add in some stories about those that lost their shirts due to Quant trading.

I think the correct term is survivorship bias. I like this quote from Nassim Talebs book The Black Swan - "The cemetery of failed restaurants is very silent". I also very much like this example of the bias:

"During World War II, the statistician Abraham Wald took survivorship bias into his calculations when considering how to minimize bomber losses to enemy fire. Researchers from the Center for Naval Analyses had conducted a study of the damage done to aircraft that had returned from missions, and had recommended that armor be added to the areas that showed the most damage. Wald noted that the study only considered the aircraft that had survived their missions — the bombers that had been shot down were not present for the damage assessment. The holes in the returning aircraft, then, represented areas where a bomber could take damage and still return home safely. Wald proposed that the Navy instead reinforce the areas where the returning aircraft were unscathed, since those were the areas that, if hit, would cause the plane to be lost."

People always write about the winners in all fields. Movie stars, sports players, etc. Little is written about those who aren't successful.

What is your concern? More people will choose a PhD in math or physics instead of getting an MBA? Some poor fool in high school will be misled into studying more math and physics?

...which is what happened to most geeks I know who've tried, in fact this sums up their exploits rather well: https://m.xkcd.com/1570/

I find it surprising they implied Overdeck is a superior mathematician to Tao. Winning the fields medal is a public award, based on his excellent papers and results.

Contrast this with some event in Tribeca the article does not even provide the name of.

Color me skeptical.

Judging mathematical talent by these sorts of competitions is a bit like judging athletic talent by holding arm wrestling competitions. Probably indicative, but not overwhelming evidence. Anyways, I doubt anyone familiar with both thinks Overdeck is a better mathematician than Tao. But this article is from Forbes, and their audience of businessmen may not mind seeing a businessman portrayed as smarter than the professor.

It's a dead link for me. The original from google search also seems to be dead. Someone seems to have pulled the article. And the google cache is also returning null.

Forbes website shows a blank page if you are using adblockers or noscript or some other extensions.

Open the link in an incognito window and it will work.

Works for me.

Surely its those who employ "math and computer wizards" that are Billionaires.

You should read the article before commenting.

John is a hedge fund manager which is how he made is billions

I never seem to understand why gambling with other peoples money is celebrated. Its not like they were a startup trying to create and market a product and struck it rich.

If you had to stretch it, there is a thin veneer of celebrating math in the article. But lets face it, if there was no money involved, forbes would most certainly not be covering mathematicians discussing equations.

No, they used stochastic to reduce risk and find patterns in the markets.

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/...

You prefer the old fashion way?

Aren't startups gambling with other people's money? What's the success rate there? 1 in 100?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com