[hinkley]

There was a guy who used math to 'solve' the stock market in the 80's or maybe even the 70's, and he flew dark for quite some time before revealing how he did it. Presumably like Buffett, once people know what you're up to they start to adapt to your actions which changes the entire equation. If you can reduce feedback loops by getting good at, for instance, sneakily and quietly collecting a large position by many small increments under many different accounts, then you can get somewhere without being pulled into a giant spiral.

[akira2501]

> If you can reduce feedback loops by getting good at, for instance, sneakily and quietly collecting a large position by many small increments under many different accounts, then you can get somewhere without being pulled into a giant spiral.

Implying that you otherwise have information or purchasing clairvoyance that other people cannot access which would make this approach more likely to payoff than not. Otherwise, it's a lot of effort for a small chance at reward, so why not just buy into an index?

[hinkley]

You understand that index funds only relatively recently won mindshare, right? Particularly in the eighties everyone thought they could beat the system. And there was so much inefficiency that they were often right.

It’s also democratized with the drop in transaction fees. When I first looked at the stock market, they wanted $80 a trade, which is $190 adjusted for inflation. So you’re getting much more Law of Large Numbers effects today, smoothing things out.