> Buffett bet against aggregate performance of hedge funds as an investment vehicle.
He let an expert pick the funds of funds. AFAIK, he didn't restrict which funds the expert picked.
> If he restricted his focus to the highest performing funds of the past 10 - 30 years, he would have lost handily.
This is like saying "If I only bet on the teams who won the world cup, I would always make money". Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.
> this isn't really the smoking gun you'd think it is.
If the bet wasn't the best way to show the relative value of these investments, is there a better way? Or is the answer really "if you need a hedge fund as part of your portfolio, you probably aren't coming to HN for investment advice"?