Investing General Discussion

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,964
Just spent 1 minute googling it : Computer Simulation Suggests That The Best Investment Strategy Is A Random One


They say it's counterintuitive, but it's pretty much Games Theory 101, uninformed players strategy (ok, in a single shot game)


No it is not, if I use a 6 faced dice, I'll get on average 3.5, doesn't mean I'll ever get 3.5. If I use a single dice the variance is going to be significant, if I use a 100, the variance is going to be smaller (a tenth), doesn't change the fact that the average is the same using 1 dice or averaging 100. That being said, if you don't understand what an average is or the difference between average and variance, indeed, you're best off using ETF.

If you've got non-zero fees, random strategy is going to perform better asymptotically than the ETF with a likelyhood of 1. That being said, asymptotically, we're all dead. If you've got 0 fees, that should make you wonder wtf are they doing with my money ? what happens if stuff start getting really bad, do I still own something ? ETF are usefull, but personnaly I'm not confortable to put 100% of my investment in them, and if you expect a big crash at some point, with banks going down, you probably should at the very least read carefully the fine prints of the ETF, you probably don't want to lose an extra 50% over an already 70% crash.
You will get on average 3.5 given infinite number of rolls. If you roll your dice five times, you are not getting an average of 3.5.
 

Gurgeh

Silver Baronet of the Realm
4,327
11,813
You will get on average 3.5 given infinite number of rolls. If you roll your dice five times, you are not getting an average of 3.5.
If you roll a dice once, you have an average of 3.5. If you roll and infinite number of dice, your average is still 3.5, but the likelyhood of getting 3.5 is 1.
 
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 user

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,964
If you roll a dice once, you have an average of 3.5. If you roll and infinite number of dice, your average is still 3.5, but the likelyhood of getting 3.5 is 1.
If you roll a dice once, the average of that roll is whatever you rolled.
 

Gurgeh

Silver Baronet of the Realm
4,327
11,813
If you roll a dice once, the average of that roll is whatever you rolled.
Because you know the roll you're going to get before investing ? If you're investing on a single 6 faced dice roll, on average you're getting 3.5. I mean, I hate to have to link a wikipedia page, but in that case of high school mathematics, I kinda have to.
That being said, it's true that using "expected value" could be less confusing, but, if you click on "mean" on the wikipedia page, you'll notice that it lead you to the "expected value" page, and mean and average are synonyms (mean vs. median vs. average on Vocabulary.com).
I
 

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,964
Because you know the roll you're going to get before investing ? If you're investing on a single 6 faced dice roll, on average you're getting 3.5. I mean, I hate to have to link a wikipedia page, but in that case of high school mathematics, I kinda have to.
That being said, it's true that using "expected value" could be less confusing, but, if you click on "mean" on the wikipedia page, you'll notice that it lead you to the "expected value" page, and mean and average are synonyms (mean vs. median vs. average on Vocabulary.com).
I
The average of the rolls converges to expected value given infinite number of rolls (strong law of large numbers). If I roll 5 times and get 4, 5, 4, 6 and 2 my average sure as fuck isn't 3.5.
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,773
8,062
<Misunderstanding basic probability>

You're confusing the distribution mean with the actual average of your sample from that distribution. If I roll a die once and get a 1 my average is 1, not 3.5. You need a very large number of rolls for your sample mean to converge satisfactorily towards the distribution mean.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Gurgeh

Silver Baronet of the Realm
4,327
11,813
The average of the rolls converges to expected value given infinite number of rolls (strong law of large numbers). If I roll 5 times and get 4, 5, 4, 6 and 2 my average sure as fuck isn't 3.5.
If we're discussing finance strategy, I'm guessing we're talking ex-ante not ex-post. If I consider a 6 faced dice roll and I have to invest on it, I can't know what roll I will get, and the average, or mean, or you're right more accurately the expected value is 3.5. It's true that it is somewhat ambiguous, but it should not be in the context, and even the wikipedia page is making that "mistake" of using indifferently mean, average and expected value.
 

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole
36,352
115,436
ETF are nice if you're in a hurry to invest, but if you can afford to DCA your investment over a few years, picking stocks at random beat the ETF in the long run because of lesser fees. It's important to pick at random, as it is the optimal strategy of the uninformed player, and you should always assume that you aren't smarter or better informed than professionnal investors. Also, personnaly, I'm more confortable with owning a stock than buying an ETF, you don't have to worry about "what if whoever is owning the ETF goes bankrupt ?", also a lot of ETF are far more complicated than it seems, synthetic ETF, how robust are they actually ? So for me, it's random buying CAC40 stuff, and I only use ETF to invest in foreign markets.
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,773
8,062
If we're discussing finance strategy, I'm guessing we're talking ex-ante not ex-post. If I consider a 6 faced dice roll and I have to invest on it, I can't know what roll I will get, and the average, or mean, or you're right more accurately the expected value is 3.5. It's true that it is somewhat ambiguous, but it should not be in the context, and even the wikipedia page is making that "mistake" of using indifferently mean, average and expected value.

"Average" and "mean" measure the central tendency of a set of numbers and have no meaning if you haven't sampled your distribution. The mean of zero samples is undefined. The mean of n > 0 samples is the sum of your observations over n and not the mean of the distribution. (Yes, it's fine to talk about the mean of a distribution when you have no observations, but then you're implicitly talking about a theoretical situation where n = infinity.)

And if we're going for full pedantry points here we need to be clear that we're talking about the arithmetic mean and not the weighted, geometric, or harmonic means or some other measure of central tendency.
 
Last edited:

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole
36,352
115,436
The problem here is Gurgeh sounds like someone who just took a finance class and is getting things mixed up. I'm assuming he's likely talking about portfolio theory which says that once you invest in around 15 companies, you eliminate market risk. But then he's trying to draw an equivalency to that with an index.

And it's making him look fucktarded.
 

Frenzied Wombat

Potato del Grande
14,730
31,802
You don't invest in individual stocks these days unless you are a professional investor or you just want a few independant stocks to round out your portfolio of ETF's and mutual funds. Buying a bunch of random stocks to try and emulate an ETF just so you can maybe save a 0.3% expense ratio is retarded.
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,773
8,062
The expected value is also known as the expectation, mathematical expectation, EV, average, mean value, mean, or first moment.

That is true. FOR THE DISTRIBUTION. Your observations/investments are NOT the distribution. They are samples FROM the distribution and have their own importantly different mean.
 

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,964
Expected value, average or mean of a probability function doesnt equal average of the sample.

Once again, I roll a 2 and a 6, what is my average and why does it not equal the expected value of 3.5?
 

Gurgeh

Silver Baronet of the Realm
4,327
11,813
That is true. FOR THE DISTRIBUTION. Your observations/investments are NOT the distribution. They are samples FROM the distribution and have their own importantly different mean.
They are distributions, you moron, if they were sample you'd know the outcome. When you invest you don't know the outcome, obvously.
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,773
8,062
They are distributions, you moron, if they were sample you'd know the outcome. When you invest you don't know the outcome, obvously.

And this is the heart of your confusion. Your sample is made at the time you commit to the investment, not the time when you discover what the outcome actually was/will be. There is an information lag, but for all useful purposes the outcome is fixed when your money goes in.

If you bet on a single die roll that happens next week, are you saying the mean of that roll after it's executed will be 3.5? It's true that the expected value of the roll is 3.5, but the ex-post mean, which is the only thing that matters, cannot be 3.5 by definition.
 
Last edited:

Gurgeh

Silver Baronet of the Realm
4,327
11,813
And this is the source of your confusion. Your sample is made at the time you make the investment, not the time when you discover what the outcome actually was. There is an information lag, but for all useful purposes the outcome is fixed when your money goes in.
So, if I have to invest on a 6 faced dice or a 20 faced dice, the amount I'm ready to pay for that investment doesn't depend on the expected value ? The results of the rolls are irrevelant to what i'm willing to bet. By nature a stock is a random variable, the moment I'm investing on it, I'm investing on something that has a mean and a variance that I might somewhat know, but I certainly won't know what it's going to be worth in 1 year.

If I'm picking a random stock from the dow jones (with the proper probability) the expected value of that strategy is the same as the expected value of the dow jones. You might argue that it is not the same once I actually picked one at random, but the strategy of picking a stock at random has the same expected value as the dow jones. The variance is not the same, but if you invest twice a month for a few years this isn't even an issue.

You're right to say that, it might be a lot of trouble for a very small and long term gain, but :
1) There is not 1, 2 or more intermediate between you and your property (the shares), or worse some synthetic might not have any shares backing them.
2) You aren't bound to a single intermediate to lower your fees.
3) You can make your own "index", for example I've been taking more industrial and less financial than the "index" I'm picking from (CAC40), so you can have a somewhat mixed strategies easily.

EFT have their use, as I said, I'm not going to buy shares from a foreign market directly, if I want to buy a chuck of korea, I'm getting an ETF obviously. But I find it a bit concerning that so many people believe that EFTs are the only way to invest, especialy for people investing on regular basis, as the service they provide is extremely limited (see the forbes article I linked, that state that playing at random outperformed any other strategy... ok, ex-post)

If you want to invest on the dow jones, getting two dozens of stocks from the DJ is going to be good enough, on average (or expected value) you'll get the same, and it seems that you're even getting a lower variance ...
 

Fogel

Mr. Poopybutthole
12,175
45,398
What happened, the math nerds weren't happy that they couldn't confuse anyone so they decided to derail the thread that the finance nerds confuse everyone in?
 
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 user

Sanrith Descartes

Veteran of a thousand threadban wars
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
41,473
107,527
Listen, If you want to throw darts at a board and invest on the outcome then go ahead. Others might prefer to look at cash flows, balance sheets and the like. For me personally, your method means there is a percentage chance you will actually throw your money at a company like Blue Apron, General Electric, Kraft Heinz, or JC Penny. I prefer to rule out companies that are basically shit.

As for the question of low cost ETFs and how they make money, look at the AUM of the SPY and then multiply by it 4 basis points to see how much they take in a year for an algo to make decisions on matching the SP500 and a couple of dudes to sign documents. Hint... it is a fuck ton of money.