Did Sklansky say he Could have won a Nobel?

[Beerfund]

[ QUOTE ]
He just likes to act like he makes $$$ at poker, but it's beneath him. Pay no attention.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're so petty, believe what you want. I don't like you, I don't like most poker players and I don't care what you think of me so dont' even bother.

[David Sklansky]

"By your comment I assume that you think more people beat the market over the last 20 years than won a Nobel prize, and that my comment is stupid. Would I be correct? How many people who are managing significant amounts of money (lets say > 50 million, hence you would consider professional) would beat the market? I think its a very, very low number. As for Nobel prizes, the number is something like 10 per year for the last 20 years, so right around 200 give or take a few. I think there was significantly less than that beating the market over 20 years. If you can prove otherwise, I will stand corrected."

Even if we were to accept your hypothesis that it is tougher to beat the stock market than win a physics Nobel Prize it does not imply that those who beat stocks are smarter than Physics Nobel Prize winners. And of course they are not. They simply have a certain talent and insight that is only mildly correlated with brain horsepower.

[Leonardo]

No problem David. I will accept that Physics Nobel Prize winners are more intelligent than those few who have beaten the market. So my challenge to you is do either. It is certainly more difficult to do either than write the best poker books around, for which I will agree you have, even though I think they lack mathematical evidence and are largely just your thoughts.The only reason your books are the best is because the rest are just so poor. I dont think you have any chance of winning the Nobel. I dont think you have any chance of beating the market.

[ohgeetee]

I have also read that many of those that are so far ahead at an early age also tend to peak at an early age. there's no way to tell what you could have or would have done had your choices been different, because you didn't make those choices.

You're an asset to poker, and are very successful now that it has boomed, but I think you often rest on the "I could have done X if I had applied myself" to convey your intelligence and potential, when in fact your choice to not follow through(inability?) is what seperates almost all of those that are and those that could have been.

[tolbiny]

"How does anyone here who is doubting that he could have won one know that he's not smart enough to have done it?"

Paraphrasing
If anyone knew how hard i had to work to achieve my greatness, it would not seem wonderous at all.
Michealangelo (hell, i don't even know how to spell his name).

The long and the short of it seems to be that intelligance alone doesn't do it (whatever "it" is), a combination of things need to happed for something "great" to occur. I don't even go to a top 30 school in this country and i know more than one person who got a 1600 on their sat's that failed out, you can find them at Ohio state or Stanford, the ones who do something incredible have a mixture of ability and work ethic, and even those who posses both in abundance don't always leave their mark. Luck in the field they choose/are drawn too, a tragedy in their life derailing them, or a tradgedy inspiring them. Claiming that since you believe yourself "smart" enough you are capable of earning such distinction is what is rubbing many people the wrong way.

[tolbiny]

"But what do I know I was about as close to a high school drop out that one could be without actually dropping out."

Are you showing off?

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky said that he could easily beat the stock market. Now I am fairly sure more people win Nobel prizes over a twenty year period than beat the stock market over the same period of time (at least people investing a significant amount of money anyway). This is just another example of David Sklansky's delusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong beating the stock market is very easy, it involves only a small amount of common sense, and basically entails doing the polar opposite of what brokers recommend, and doing your own research, look for income and good asset backing, if its all the rage it aint worth looking at. I personally believe Sklansky could easily beat the market probably by 3-4% per annum.

On the other hand getting a Nobel prize is fairly tough and involves a lot of luck.

Mack

[Leonardo]

That is laughable. You dont have any idea what you are talking about. Have you beaten the stock market by 3-4% over the long term(>10 years)? I think you maybe read that somewhere, or one of your friends told it to you. If you are able to beat the stock market by 3-4% per year you would be a billionaire in no time(10 years I think). It is INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. Why would it be easy? Millions of very smart people are trying to do it 24 hrs a day. It can be done, but it is one of the most difficult things in the world to do over any meaningful period of time. I will repeat it. You do not have a clue what you are talking about.

[Sponger15SB]

So what you're trying to say is in the stock market there is...

0.000001% winners
99.999999% losers

This makes perfect sense.

[tolbiny]

no- hes talking about beating the market's average gain by 3-4% (the dow is averageing 7-8% over its history right?)