[lutusp]

> In other words, there's no easy way to get rich.

Of course there are -- very easy ways. But there's no reliable easy way to get rich.

> people looking to get rich quick in financial markets are probably better off learning how to play poker.

If we eliminate "quick", then not true. All one needs to do is invest in an equity index fund and patiently wait decades while ignoring the dubious claims of investment counselors. It's very reliable.

With respect to "quick", that also happens but with much less reliability. Consider that a blind computer program randomly flipping coins, with no strategy at all, will enrich a small percentage of its accounts by chance alone. This works for people too, but it's a rare, chance outcome, not any kind of strategy. More here:

http://arachnoid.com/equities_myths

[yarou]

The only case where a completely random strategy works is if there are black swan events occurring at equally random intervals. I agree on the buy-and-hold index fund advice.

[lutusp]

> The only case where a completely random strategy works is if there are black swan events occurring at equally random intervals.

It depends on how you define "works". A random strategy doesn't work at all on average, it can only be said to "work" for the 1/2 of the investors that by chance fall above the average.

And a random sequence is by definition a series of black swans. Unless you're saying that a black swan can only be an extraordinarily unlikely occurrence, in which case all we need do is wait a little longer for the improbable but eventually certain outcome that will meet anyone's definition of black swan.

There are 23 people in a room talking. Pretty quickly two of them realize they have the same birthday. Is that a black swan? After all, there are 365 1/4 days in a year -- how unlikely is it for two of 23 random people to have the same birthday? Is it 23 / 365.25 (6.2%) or is it more or less likely?

My point? Not all apparent black swans are really black swans.