IBKR's Petterfy says 'lol' to Bitcoin

sle said:
LOL indeed. Various modifications/variations of the Bachelier formula were used in the options pits way before him, in the 20s (“delta sheets” was a common tool). There were a couple firms that have invented models that were pretty much identical to BSM was before too and kept it a secret.

I am not denying that he is a smart guy, but he wasn’t the first one to do something in this business. Just like people who started Google weren’t the first search engine, just found a successful business model.
More...
Whom am I to debate you on this. I didn't know options were traded in the 20s. If you say so, I'll believe you. i just have a fascination with visionaries who do above and beyond the ordinary. You could say the same about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. They didn't invent computers but they certainly were game changers. The guys at google are still taking things to the next level. I wouldn't call it luck. Perhaps smarts, hard work, drive, a vision with a smidgen of luck.
 
eastern_warrior said:
Whom am I to debate you on this. I didn't know options were traded in the 20s. If you say so, I'll believe you. i just have a fascination with visionaries who do above and beyond the ordinary. You could say the same about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. They didn't invent computers but they certainly were game changers. The guys at google are still taking things to the next level. I wouldn't call it luck. Perhaps smarts, hard work, drive, a vision with a smidgen of luck.
More...
The phenomenon you're demonstrating is actually so common and well studied it has a name, the fundamental attribution error. We actually all do it in both directions (over attribute poor performance to the person while discounting the impact of chance as well as what you're demonstrating, attributing good performance almost entirely to the person while discounting the impact of chance). It's worth a google, it's a pretty pernicious error especially on the down side and in my case at least I was able to recognize myself making it at least some of the time once I was aware of what it is.
 
I think the moral of the story, for me, is that a lot of these "captain of industry" types have come out and opined on bitcoin, blockchain and what have you... While one can respect their views, given that they have demonstrated some skill at making business decisions, one has to be well aware of their structural biases.

I think that was sle's point and I am in complete agreement with it.
 
Sig said:
...it's a pretty pernicious error especially on the down side and in my case at least I was able to recognize myself making it at least some of the time once I was aware of what it is.
More...

ET's Rarely-used-word-of-the-month award goes to Sig. Here's your reward...Dark chocolate bark with almonds.
 
Sig said:
The phenomenon you're demonstrating is actually so common and well studied it has a name, the fundamental attribution error. We actually all do it in both directions (over attribute poor performance to the person while discounting the impact of chance as well as what you're demonstrating, attributing good performance almost entirely to the person while discounting the impact of chance). It's worth a google, it's a pretty pernicious error especially on the down side and in my case at least I was able to recognize myself making it at least some of the time once I was aware of what it is.
More...
I always ask myself the question, did I do better than a monkey with a buy button?

I don't have a definitive answer.
 
Agree with Sig's last comment but I think a common denominator of these titans of industry is that they make their own luck. You can always point to outliers so no need to go there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top