[bowcoy]

This is a contradiction. You first assume complete market efficiency (assets are priced in) to support that the market is random and unpredictable. Then you say that a hedge funds' payroll is no better than random guessing (something you could scale up without hiring anyone). This means that quants are grossly overpaid (assets don't reflect their true price) and that the trader's market is highly inefficient... That's having your cake and eating it too: a rational irrational market.

And it is a hypothesis that can't be disproven or proven, since, in a round-about way, it concerns non-computable concepts like Kolmogorov Complexity/Randomness (The efficient market hypothesis basically states that the stock market is an optimally compressed computer program, there are no discernible patterns left to reduce the "file" size).

There are numerous tried and tested ways to beat the market, including:

- Have more information than other players - Have better models than other players - Make faster decisions than other players - Have enough energy to perturb the system and predict the outcome (this is the big one that is out of reach of most individuals and non-Physics PhD's).

Survivor bias is of course a very real phenomenon, but like other incomplete information games that can be won, or even solved, algorithmically: Poker, international diplomacy, ..., we would not conflate pure luck with the real skills required to play those games consistently well.