reascenda

The CEO of Credit Suisse is a black man from the Ivory Coast.

Not to say that racism doesn't exist in Switzerland but equally you don't see policemen shooting unarmed black people in their houses either.

It's actually the other way around, at least historically speaking. Typically a very small number of names account for the lions share of the index return.

They've probably priced themselves out of that scenario now though.

With valuations >billion even for millions of users the acquiror is paying hundreds per customer. I'd be surprised if the economics of that stack up.

Would it be conclusive evidence if you saw him cheating with your own eyes?

If yes would you say that the chance of your being mistaken is higher or lower than one in 10^100s.

The widely shared preference for certain kinds of evidence over others has nothing to do with certainty and everything to do stubborn human biases.

Poker is semi solved, not like chess is of course but to the point where good bots always beat good humans over a large enough sample.

There are objectively better and worse ways to play poker if you make some assumptions about the behaviour of the other players. In a small sample those assumptions may be false, but in a large enough sample it's extremely unlikely to be the case.

So it's extremely surprising to see a winning player employing crazily non optimal strategies (like betting 54o AI pre flop in a three way pot). That is just a losing play in the absence of information about the other players holdings.

The idea that he's reading people is absurd, even independently of the evidence of him not actually looking at people while betting. Live reads (to the extent they help at all) are incorporated in the win rates of the best players already.

My dude over an 8k sample of hands he's winning at approximately 100x the rate of the best players, while deviating colossally from optimal strategies. The probability of winning at the rate he does is beyond the one to the number of atoms in the universe level.

This is as egregious a case of cheating as you're ever likely to find.

I mean if a guy wins a coin toss 1000x in a row is that definitive evidence?

That's basically what you have here. With the added extra of being able to see him check his phone before making ridiculous bets.

Check out the Doug Polk or Joe Ingram videos. It's 100% cheating in this case.

Just a heads up that you can get the column free if you subscribe to it as an email newsletter.

This may now be moot after the LinkedIn Vs hiq labs case a couple of days ago which appears to have blanket legalised we scraping.

For some of those things yes. Dangerous driving and smoking for me are reckless to the point of being blameworthy. I'm less sure about eating badly and not exercising but I'm not sure that's a difference of kind rather than degree (inasmuch as those things tend to be less harmful, or an instance is less harmful)

I thought he was an asshole. Quite apart from how he came across in the film exposing yourself to utterly needless danger is a very bad way to treat people who love you.

Roche, Novartis, AZN, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi,GSK and on and on. You could hardly pick a worse sector than healthcare to make this kind of nonsense America first point.