Feb

4

An update on the results: 

4.58	32.7	J***** Albert

0.86	8.21	Jack Tierny

0.69	7.06	Pitt Maner

0.58	6.34	Chris Tucker

0.57	6.33	William Weaver

0.49	5.78	Jan-Peter Janssen

0.39	5.1	Marlowe Cassetti

0.37	4.96	Bill Rafter

0.24	4.15	Sam Eisenstadt

0.24	4.14	Vince Fulco

0.24	4.1	Steve Ellisson

0.19	3.77	Anton Johnson

0.13	3.4	Laurel Kenner

0.11	3.24	Sushil Kedia

0.04	2.84	Scott Brooks

0.02	2.71	Gary Rogan

0.01	2.62	Pete Earle

-0.05	2.22	Kim Zussman

-0.07	2.07	Russ Sears

-0.1	1.9	Yanki Onen

-0.16	1.48	Michael Bonderer

-0.28	0.73	George Parkanyi

-0.28	0.73	Tim Melvin

-0.62	-1.5	Gordon Haave

-0.64	-1.66	Victor Niderhoffer

-0.65	-1.72	Dan Grossman

-0.87	-3.19	Paolo Pezzutti

-0.88	-3.26	Ken Drees

-0.89	-3.29	Mr. Krisrock

-0.94	-3.64	J. T. Holley

-0.98	-3.93	John Floyd

-1.02	-4.15	Jay Pasch

-1.32	-6.1	Matthew 

-14.93	-95.7	Phil McDonnell

Suppose each of these performances are the prior information of performance at end of 1 month (say one month), the underlying strategies are known to all participants.

With the respective performances so far, assuming each participant was given X amount of house money to begin the bets, what would with these priors now:

1) Each participant do further if one more X was given to them, if a) They could choose between betting any incremental amounts only on the existing strategy or holding the existing strategy. A wage earner faces this choice at each month end. Why? b) they are allowed to bet on any of the others' strategy including reducing exposure to the current strategy. Why?

2) What would the public do if these were say a closed set of the only bets available ? Why?

Note: this is not part of any process of the Investment Contest. Just the curiosities of one of the hungry minds. No comments is as fine as any detailed or brief comments. Please do not treat this as an opportunity to bet more as its not authorised by the Contest Sponsor and List owner.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search