Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jane Street's Figgie card game

figgie.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: Jane Street's Figgie card game

#101

Post by noname123 »

majormajor wrote: post #97
yieldcrv wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

price discovery of more assets will providing more liquidity and faster financing to cure cancer so thats an easy rebuttal to keep in the back pocket

What if curing cancer needs education, applied intellect, and inspiration more than it needs "financing"? No small number of examples of places with plenty of financiers that have said "aha, we need to have [thing X], let's [throw some money at it]" without much useful results because they don't actually have the necessary people, knowhow, networks, or institutions.

To me both are beautiful. At risk of getting further tangential lol, microbiology and cancer genomics to me are beautiful competitions like trading between market participants (cancer cells vs immune cells).

What I'm trying to say is I don't buy the notion of humans "conquering" a disease or the virtue of somehow "elevating" ourselves beyond greed. We are just player-actors in both the beautiful cycle of life-and-death and the madness of crowds participating in markets of life (airbnb rental, dating, job, you name it). To pretend otherwise that somehow we can solve and tame uncertainty is -EV.

Re: Jane Street's Figgie card game

#102

Post by andriesm »

lovich wrote: post #96
billyjmc wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it requires conspiratorial thinking to believe that seed oils are less healthful than more traditional sources of cooking oils / fats (for one reason or another). Regardless of that, given that seed oils can be produced cheaply and incorporated in to foods to increase profit, “seed oil infiltration” into foods is very real.

It does require conspiratorial thinking because it’s a conspiracy theory. It’s not a particularly old one either, it started showing up a year or two before Covid if I recall right.

You sound very confident and certain, about something which it is not possible yo be this certain about. How do we know with very high certainty that seed oils are not worse for us, say than olive oil?

Re: Jane Street's Figgie card game

#103

Post by lovich »

andriesm wrote: post #102
lovich wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does require conspiratorial thinking because it’s a conspiracy theory. It’s not a particularly old one either, it started showing up a year or two before Covid if I recall right.

You sound very confident and certain, about something which it is not possible yo be this certain about. How do we know with very high certainty that seed oils are not worse for us, say than olive oil?

I am certain in the same way that I am certain there is not a teapot in the same orbit as earth but conveniently on the opposite side of the sun so that it may never be observed.

The hullabaloo about seed oils showed up roughly 5-6 years ago, has no scientific backing beyond the level that gets you flat earthers and climate change deniers, and is now being touted by people like you as something I must be so confident doesn’t exist that now I have to be the one supplying evidence for the claim.

Add in the normal seed oil enthusiast tropes like Big Pharma and now it’s a conspiracy theory based on nebulous and unproven or actors conspiring against everyone who knows the simple answer of just getting rid of seed oils.

Re: Jane Street's Figgie card game

#104

Post by thx »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #69
thx wrote: post #68

just curious , if anyone knows — is this the same game played by FTX sam in that Michael Lewis crypto biopic ??

I've not watched FTX's biopic - I think it's one Michael got wrong. But Michael Lewis is a Liar's Poker fan from his days at Salomon.

what do you think he got wrong (in general or particularly) ??

not saying it was my favorite book but i did enjoy michael lewis’ description of the card game & such

Re: Jane Street's Figgie card game

#105

Post by [deleted] »

noname123 wrote: post #94
lewiscarson wrote: post #6

There is a fantastic blog post by Ross Rheingans-Yoo about the shortcomings of poker as a tool to teach trading and why Figgie is a better one. https://blog.rossry.net/figgie/ He also wrote an equally brilliant eulogy about Max Chiswick, one of his colleagues, who helped him develop it. https://blog.rossry.net/chisness/

Beautiful eulogy. I don't know the author nor the eulogized but reading the eulogy made me appreciate people like those two (poker players, options traders, sports gamblers etc). I often see in HN comments about how trading and Wall St in general is evil - when I feel completely the opposite. The two inventors of Figgie may not have contributed directly to curing cancer, saving the dolphins or the whales - dare I pos…

[deleted]

Re: Jane Street's Figgie card game

#106

Post by jldugger »

thx wrote: post #104
philipwhiuk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've not watched FTX's biopic - I think it's one Michael got wrong. But Michael Lewis is a Liar's Poker fan from his days at Salomon.

what do you think he got wrong (in general or particularly) ?? not saying it was my favorite book but i did enjoy michael lewis’ description of the card game & such

Which book? OP seems to be referencing _Going Infinite_ which is widely regarded as a bad take[1], while the card game you reference seems to be Liar's Poker, from Lewis' book of the same name.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Infinite#Reception

Re: Jane Street's Figgie card game

#107

Post by pinkmuffinere »

lovich wrote: post #103
andriesm wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound very confident and certain, about something which it is not possible yo be this certain about. How do we know with very high certainty that seed oils are not worse for us, say than olive oil?

I am certain in the same way that I am certain there is not a teapot in the same orbit as earth but conveniently on the opposite side of the sun so that it may never be observed. The hullabaloo about seed oils showed up roughly 5-6 years ago, has no scientific backing beyond the level that gets you flat earthers and climate change deniers, and is now being touted by people like you as something I must be so confident…

There’s a long history of producers making something unhealthy, and suppressing evidence it is unhealthy (cigarettes, corn syrup, milk formula, bacon, the list is quite long). It’s _not that remarkable_ if they’re doing the same thing here. I don’t believe the seed oil thing, this is my first time hearing about it; I just don’t think it’s hard to believe evidence about seed oil health could be suppressed. Given the long history of deceit in food products, I don’t think it’s crazy for people to ask for evidence in either direction.

Re: Jane Street's Figgie card game

#108

Post by kqr »

jjallen wrote: post #83

I looked at this. I don’t fully understand the game yet. One thing I do not like is the emphasis of speed. Humans should not be making fast financial decisions, trading or otherwise. Sure you could improve with this game. But you don’t have to be able to make fast decisions to be successful in finance.

I feel the same, but I'm not intellectually convinced. You make up like half the ante in expectation on a random hand (on average dealt two cards of the goal suit, for 20 points against the ante of 40.)

If you can find 4 trades with a 5 point spread profit you'll make the rest of the ante back. That's a full minute for each trade, i.e. not that stressful.

What I do find stressful is how fast the bots react to obvious mispricings. If a player accidentally sells a card worth 8 points for 1 point the bots buy it before I even have a chance to see the offer! I could set a low limit bid on valuable suits to catch that, but the limits reset every time a trade happens, and I do not have the patience to enter the limit again. At least not on my phone -- might be easier on a computer with a real keyboard.

Re: Jane Street's Figgie card game

#109

Post by Intermernet »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #107
lovich wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am certain in the same way that I am certain there is not a teapot in the same orbit as earth but conveniently on the opposite side of the sun so that it may never be observed. The hullabaloo about seed oils showed up roughly 5-6 years ago, has no scientific backing beyond the level that gets you flat earthers and climate change deniers, and is now being touted by people like you as something I must be so confident…

There’s a long history of producers making something unhealthy, and suppressing evidence it is unhealthy (cigarettes, corn syrup, milk formula, bacon, the list is quite long). It’s _not that remarkable_ if they’re doing the same thing here. I don’t believe the seed oil thing, this is my first time hearing about it; I just don’t think it’s hard to believe evidence about seed oil health could be suppressed. Given the l…

" I don’t think it’s crazy for people to ask for evidence in either direction."

That's literally the point of view that Russell's Teapot is demonstrating as fallacious. There needs to be evidence "for" something before you can argue its validity. Arguing for a statement with no evidence is easy, common, and unfortunately absolutely pointless.

Re: Jane Street's Figgie card game

#110

Post by FilosofumRex »

lewiscarson wrote: post #6

There is a fantastic blog post by Ross Rheingans-Yoo about the shortcomings of poker as a tool to teach trading and why Figgie is a better one. https://blog.rossry.net/figgie/ He also wrote an equally brilliant eulogy about Max Chiswick, one of his colleagues, who helped him develop it. https://blog.rossry.net/chisness/

The cabal at Jane Street keeps getting dirtier and nastier. For those of us who happen to have known them from their ivy league days at MIT and Harvard on to predictably careers at JS, HRT or Five Rings, no surprises here.

They all 1)ran student clubs, often time starting their own if they had to, but couldn't care less about the mission or welfare of the group, just so it'd be show leadership skills. They all 2) swore allegiance to Effective Altruism mental without ever volunteering a minute to any worthy cause, most interestingly, 3)interbred only among themselves, possibly because they're too smart to associate with other students.

I find it amazing just how just a few firms on Wall Street seem to fish out all sorts of sociopaths right of ivy league grads. SBF(MIT), R-Yoo brothers (Harvard), happen to have made it to the news so far, but there are new generations coming right behind them - just look for Effective Altruism on their LinkedIn profile. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/business/ftx-sbf-modulo-c...

Post reply on HN