Hacker News Reader

Comment by bostik | Hacker News Reader

The quote from Margin Call is used a lot, but the more I look at the world, the more I believe it's a naive take. There are three ways to make a living in this business: be first, be smarter, or cheat.

That statement has the wrong boolean operator: the implicit OR in place of commas should be replaced with AND operators. The reason is simple - if you are not willing to cheat, you are leaving an edge to those who do.

View on HN

>if you are not willing to cheat, you are leaving an edge to those who do.

You don’t have to be the best player or to cheat on the poker table for +ev

You have to be better than the bad players, and know when to fold against a better player

You will make less profit than cheats. But, you won’t have to cheat

> You have to be better than the bad players

That is easier with fair opponents. Cheating could help the worse poker player to win.

In a field of apple tree, the best/fast/cheater climbers got the most apples but eventually everyone showing up can pick one or patient for the next season.

Pocket and finance needs at the very least one looser for the others to win something. Others cheating and you not, does lower your chances to win.

Depends what you mean by cheat? Break a law? And putting ethics aside - risk and consequences of getting caught.

Based on DOJ fines cheating is required!

BUT!!

Cheating is only strictly required in the trio when everyone is doing the same thing (olympic 100m) vs. different things (trading).

(In the olympics the prize is honour, achievement, etc. so most people wont cheat for that reason.)

Worked for Renaissance Technologies: https://www.ft.com/content/8cef8c70-5d02-4762-9100-2d92d0c76...

They didn't exactly cheat. According to the rules as written, what they did was acceptable. Others who were slightly less blatant about it were permitted, and continue to be permitted, to do the same thing.

That tax case didn't concern their alpha. It was a result of the ruling body deciding that they had inaccurately grouped short term profits with long term profits, through the use of basket options. The ruling in this case was simply the short term gains that were grouped into basket options weren't able to be taxed like the long term gains they were construing them as.

We agree. The case was about Renaissance breaking the law. The best lawyers their money could buy lost and did not avail themselves of their right to appeal. The ruling body found they were tax cheats.

Philanthropic work is great way to get shills to come out of the woodworks.

To „make a living in this business“, the OR will suffice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com