News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:If You Want to Go Broke, Listen to a Billionaire by H8crilA on Tuesday October 01, 2019 @06:21PM (#21131424)
Investing is a "loser's game". By comparing it to tennis: a "winner's game" is a tennis game in which you try to play the ball so well that your opponent can't handle it, and you score a point. This is how professionals play tennis, they win by superior play. An amateur is playing a "loser's game" - focused on just bouncing the ball 20 times and hoping that his opponent bounces the ball only 19 times. Similarly in investing the whole point is to avoid trouble, stay in the game for a long time and maybe eventually score a nice win on the way. This implies insistence on low prices (buy low sell high / margin of safety), not chasing crazy returns (because crazy high returns are often surrounded by crazy bad losses) and diversification (accepting the fact that one's judgement is probably poor and that there is inherent randomness in the world).
Re:If You Want to Go Broke, Listen to a Billionaire by dragontamer on Tuesday October 01, 2019 @07:46PM (#21132109)
It should be noted that Stockfish chess heavily prunes its searches because it too plays a "loser's game". Instead of searching for the best move, Stockfish narrows its search and simply tries to prove that the move it does pick "isn't bad".

Ameatur level Chess is about figuring out a good "trick": a powerful pin or maybe a fork that the opponent didn't see. So low-level chess is a "winner's game".

High-level chess, at least computer chess, is more about making fewer mistakes than the opponent.

---------

Bogey Golf is another one. Playing for +18 leads to a score of ~88 after a round of golf, solid for an amateur. Not good enough for the pro-leagues. You get onto the green in 3-shots and only have 2-putts.

Pro-players of course take big, aggressive hits. Tiger Woods in his hayday would get onto the green in just 1-shot (throwing out his back and knee, it certainly wasn't a healthy swing). But a typical player who tried to hit that hard would end up missing their shots, whiffing the ball, or just straight up sending the ball out of bounds.

Re:If You Want to Go Broke, Listen to a Billionaire by cjlars on Tuesday October 01, 2019 @08:09PM (#21132240)
A common saying in chess is that the winner is the person who made the second to last mistake.

However, having played quite a bit against stockfish it certainly doesn't feel like that. It just crushes you, mercilessly and swiftly no matter what you do.

Re:If You Want to Go Broke, Listen to a Billionaire by dragontamer on Tuesday October 01, 2019 @08:55PM (#21132515)
Well, Stockfish probably exhaustively checks all moves ~4 or 5 ply forward.

But the move that Stockfish picks has been searched to depth 30 or even 50, depending on how easy or hard the position is. Its infeasible to actually search all possibilities, but Stockfish basically is searching "deep", to ensure that most obvious tactical patterns are accounted for (orderings of captures and stuff of that nature)

That's roughly the "shape" of Stockfish's search tree. Super deep for the moves it picks, but very shallow on its exhaustive search.

Re:If You Want to Go Broke, Listen to a Billionaire by edw on Tuesday October 01, 2019 @07:05PM (#21131833)
Why people have downvoted you is beyond me. There’s a lot of truth about investing and life in your comment.
Re:If You Want to Go Broke, Listen to a Billionaire by leetcrew on Wednesday October 02, 2019 @04:08PM (#21140263)
plenty of pro tennis players play a highly competent "loser's" game; Rafael Nadal is a good example, along with many other clay court players.