open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked Losses, Gains, Loans, Scams, & Getting Out ... A Discussion Thread
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.04 01:32:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Shar Tegral
It is not the venue that is relevant. It is the honing of the mind. No matter what you are engaged in, vocation or avocation, a sharp mind wants to be exercised. Engaged and involved.


Is this a joke? The venue absolutely matters. What a stupid thing to say.

The depth, complexity, value, rigor, intellectual community, etc in a spaceships video game market discussion forum is a laughable context from which to discern who will lead mankind into a bright Utopian future and who will drag them back into knuckle-dragging ignorance.

Seriously, what a dumb ****ing comment.

Florestan Bronstein
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2011.09.04 06:55:00 - [62]
 

Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 04/09/2011 06:56:18
Originally by: Shar Tegral
a sharp mind wants to be exercised [implied: at every single possible occasion].

[citation needed]

(same goes for VV's awfully general & absolute claims on constructive vs destructive people)

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.04 07:59:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 04/09/2011 08:41:54
Edited by: RAW23 on 04/09/2011 08:40:31
@Elise

Sorry for bailing last night. I'm flying off to Greece on holiday with the family today and the wife required my contribution to packing. I'll give a fuller response to your points once I arrive but just on note for now.

I still think your criticism re: analysis of figures is off the mark. What the analysis of the figures shows is that it is possible to make isk from investments by pursuing rational strategies. This provides an argument against the frequently repeated claim that anyone who manages not to lose isk does so through luck. But the strategy we are discussing is not the only one available, it is simply noteworthy because it requires no effort (time expenditure) at all. Other stragtegies requiring minimal time expenditure can also be identified that provide better returns.

Now, I see that now you have actually laid out what your requirements for considering something to be a good investment are, it is not sufficient simply to show that investments can make money. But it is pretty much impossible to engage with the framework you have offered because you have failed to argue for any actual parameters, only that certain features should be taken into account. You have certainly failed to show that investing is pointless when these features are considered since yu provide no lower boundary for isk that must be earnt against level of effort involved (leaving out the question of capital absorbtion, which I think will probably prove to be a red herring given its subjectivity (by which I mean that it will vary radically depending on individual circumstance)). For your argument to be credible you really have to provide these things. You cannot expect me to carry both sides of the argument whilst you simply hover above and assert that you disagree with x or y. As it stands you have NOT presented an argument against the viability of investing, you have simply indicated that such an argument might be constructed by reference to certain features but have given no reason beyond a simple assertion to think that these features will, in fact, yield up a compelling case.

I've got lots more to say but I'll have to come back to it when I arrive later today.

Mericdus Gullimann
The Great cornholio's
Paper Tiger Coalition
Posted - 2011.09.04 08:24:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: RAW23
I've got lots more to say but I'll have to come back to it when I arrive later today.



Finally some less spam on the forums , jeezz about time Rolling Eyes.



Good holiday there btw Wink

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.04 08:36:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Mericdus Gullimann
Originally by: RAW23
I've got lots more to say but I'll have to come back to it when I arrive later today.



Finally some less spam on the forums , jeezz about time Rolling Eyes.



Good holiday there btw Wink


My posts shall blot out the sun! Mwahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Seriously, I've got a good few thousand more words on this even before Elise gets round to replying. Then I have to finish reading the rest of Shar's links and reply to that. If walls of text hurt your eyes best to look away now. Wink

Phil Hagen
Posted - 2011.09.04 09:28:00 - [66]
 

Edited by: Phil Hagen on 04/09/2011 09:27:56

Tom Hagen
Posted - 2011.09.04 09:31:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Elise DarkStar
Originally by: Tom Hagen
stuff


Please describe another way to evaluate the claim besides comparing the 4 relevant factors.

What am I supposed to do when the only way to evaluate something is the only way?


Ok, so thanks a lot for your very helpful support and willingness to engage into a fruitful discussion based on arguments.

You mention that there exists 4 relevant factors that are the one-and-only-way to evaluate the rationality to invest in MD. I am maybe a little slow, but I still don't know where to find those - could you please lay out the model a little bit more in detail than your previous answer?

I am quite interested in understanding the model that you refer to when stating "the only way to evaluate something is the only way?"... That somewaht reminds me of claims made by the church in medival times Smile. Are you referring tosome divine methods of establishing absolute truth?


Shar Tegral
Posted - 2011.09.04 10:28:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Elise DarkStar
Seriously, what a dumb ****ing comment.

I am not the one saying the activity on a forum at a game is going to change the world. However, in equal measure, you can not say where the mind from which such changes and breakthrough come will draw from in inspiration. This is why sci fi, even bad schlock sci-fi, has been instrumental in many fields. So to with many other forms of recreation. In fact, without some recreation the human mind becomes, eventually, damaged.

I make no claims to greatness but I cast no denigrations as well. Whether it be regarding my self or one venue or another, I can not find any ethical rationale for being so dismissive of earnest thought.

That's just me though, you are free to be who and what you are with equal deliberation and fervor.

Stealing Honest
Stealing Honest Speculation Group LLC
Posted - 2011.09.04 13:24:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Stibbins


I think it would be an enormous boost to investor confidence if people stopped naming their ponzi alts names like "Stealing Honest".



Oh you can do better than that heh.


Moving on......


Perhaps what Elise says is partly true, that people who are legit in their MD dealings prop up a house of cards for all the rest of the playerbase in this forum. They become the enablers to the scammers. So if thats true perhaps the real cause of scams, runners, and cheats are legit and honest people giving false hope.


I disagree.


SH

Claire Voyant
Posted - 2011.09.04 13:34:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Stealing Honest
Perhaps what Elise says is partly true, that people who are legit in their MD dealings prop up a house of cards for all the rest of the playerbase in this forum. They become the enablers to the scammers. So if thats true perhaps the real cause of scams, runners, and cheats are legit and honest people giving false hope.

I disagree.

Quite right, it is the people doling out isk that are the enablers.

Gabriel Rosencrantz
Gods of Freight
Posted - 2011.09.04 16:02:00 - [71]
 

Edited by: Gabriel Rosencrantz on 04/09/2011 16:03:01
Originally by: Elise DarkStar
Originally by: Shar Tegral
It is not the venue that is relevant. It is the honing of the mind. No matter what you are engaged in, vocation or avocation, a sharp mind wants to be exercised. Engaged and involved.


Is this a joke? The venue absolutely matters. What a stupid thing to say.

The depth, complexity, value, rigor, intellectual community, etc in a spaceships video game market discussion forum is a laughable context from which to discern who will lead mankind into a bright Utopian future and who will drag them back into knuckle-dragging ignorance.

Seriously, what a dumb ****ing comment.

I assume that last statement is a comment on your own post--a self referential rant full of sophisticated meta humor.

How do you know that at this very moment a 16yr old future general or president isn't playing this game and gaining important insight about how to lead a group of people or how to differentiate smiles and bon homme from lies and manipulation? Is it a Harvard level class? Maybe not. But its not easy, or everyone would be leading one of the largest alliances in EVE.

EVE is a complex game, and playing it calls for all sorts of skills one doesn't associate with playing a game. It certainly can and perhaps already has helped to prepare someone to build our future. Every game is essentially the opportunity to fail without penalty and, by failing, to learn to improve the skills necessary to win. Complex games require more types of skills and that means more opportunities to learn. Venue doesn't matter; only the skills obtained.

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.04 16:09:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: RAW23
@Elise


Reply in whatever timeframe and to whatever degree is convenient for you.

Just as a little summary for myself and a primer to help you formulate your next round of argument:

You are using your selective argument to counter far broader statements than it really does. That is my problem with it. If you want to counter people's perfectly valid (notice I didn't say "correct") functional impression ("functional" in the sense that they use it to make decisions) that investing here is not a good approach to making money in this game, which I believe is fundamentally what most people are saying, then you need to properly address that point with a properly formatted argument. By cherry-picking some pretty exclusive conditions in which you can barely break-even after 12 months, but making sure that it has the almighty "numbers" and "sampling", you are committing the very common error of scientism.

I accept people's frustration that I have delineated the proper outline for what shape the argument should take without engaging it myself, tough luck. All that interests me is to counter the false argument that anyone has really proven anything so far, which brings us back to the point where everyone is just making their own decision based on their own impression. People are welcome to argue my formulation of the "proper" argument or my rejection of the improper ones, or they can engage it themselves from either side with actual facts, approximations, and assumptions. Barring that, we can all just sit here with our arms crossed, each confident in our own position.

Elise DarkStar
Posted - 2011.09.04 16:13:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz
I assume that last statement is a comment on your own post--a self referential rant full of sophisticated meta humor...


A lovely post (seriously), but non-responsive to my point.


RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.06 06:16:00 - [74]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2011 06:16:33
@Elise
I fear that, with your most recent post, your wider argument runs into very significant difficulties. Before going on to that, though, let me concede a point and throw in a few contextual comments.

A ConcessionYou are correct that the particular example of numerical analysis I have used in the past and that you have cited in this thread does not respond adequately to the sense of financial viability you have outlined here. In my defence I would note that it is only in this thread that you have made clear precisely what you mean by the financial viability of investing in eve and my example of a strategy was never intended to respond to these requirements. I do not claim that the example strategy shows that one can make enough isk, only that it shows that one can make some isk and this was aimed at a point I now see that you are not making but that has frequently been made before (that because total losses via investing exceed total profits investing is a losing proposition see, e.g., Slavemaster's recent claims on this point).

You are correct that a deeper analysis would be needed to make the broader point against the more complex claim that the institution of investing is not worthwhile if it does not bring in enough isk (rather than just some isk). Unfortunately, I don't have my notebook to hand and so cannot offer the details of more precise strategies and the outcomes that would follow from their application to my set of data. What I can say from memory is that other strategies involving minimal effort do yield much higher returns (the very low return example I have been using was selected because of its dramatic illustration that you have to do almost nothing to avoid a loss) but I'll have to stop short of telling you precisely what returns would have been gained by simple expedients such as ruling out all large unsecured investments, or all non-audited investments.

Some Contextual CommentsThe four elements you want to have taken into consideration (risk, return, capital absorption and time investment) all seem like perfectly reasonable factors to take into account for an individual making an investment. I am less convinced that capital absorption and time investment have much relevance to the universalised claim that MD investing as a whole is valueless. Capital absorption, in particular, is going to be very specific to each investor, not just in terms of an investor's wallet balance but also in terms of his or her play-style during the time when making such investments. This also relates to the question of time investment as well.

In general I see little reason to think that the time investment involved in acquiring the requisite skills to make good investment decisions would be more than marginal for anyone who makes more than a handful of investments and this fixed investment in time will dwindle to truly insignificant levels as one makes more and more investments. The time investment involved in assessing any particular offering is also pretty limited once one approaches an offering with clear criteria in mind. Of course, this time investment will need to be balanced against returns since the time spent will be roughly the same whether one invests 100mil expecting two monthly payments of 5mil or invests 2bil expecting two monthly payments of 100mil. 20 minutes spent in the first case will yield a much poorer isk/hour of effort ratio than in the second case but I'm not convinced that even in the first case this will make such an investment pointless since a) 30mil an hour isn't a bad return when laid alongside mission running or mining, especially if one factors in relative enjoyment of the time spent, and b) the quality of time spent in evaluating investments may be more attractive to some players than others if they either have only fractured time availability or cannot pursue in-game approaches to making isk for some of the time when they can have access to the forums.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.06 06:18:00 - [75]
 

In addition, there is also the factor of 'psychological ramping', as it might be called. In order to do something ingame, such as mission running, I have to get myself into the mood (ramp up) and then, in order for the experience to be satisfying, play for long enough to ramp down my enthusiasm. Spending 20mins mining or mission running per day is just not going to work for me from a psychological perspective but I am much happier picking up and dropping an investment thread. A similar effect needs to be considered from a non-psychological perspective when it comes to thinking about businesses. I can earn 500mil an hour pretty consistently running certain business models but these models require that I run them for at least an hour or two a day and also require very significant setup burdens. Running such a business for 20 mins a day on whatever days I feel like it is just not possible whilst it is possible for me to earn a hundred mil or more per hour spent examining investment opportunities.

In terms of your very general argument, I think it would be difficult to show that time investment and capital absorption issues factor in sufficiently for those who invest on a regular basis to make them major determining factors in the viability of their own investment programmes. And you do have to show that they will be sufficiently powerful factors for EVERY investor if your univeralised claim is to stand (and sorry, but saying you're too lazy to provide the relevant arguments isn't good enough that just means you are making assertions and not arguments, a point to which I'll return below). By the way, I note that in one of your earlier posts you accept that investing may be worth-while for a certain class of investors; since you have already rejected the suggestion that question of social goods and harms should be taken into account, isn't this enough, by itself, to undermine your general claim as any universal claim is refuted by a single counter-example?

The key determining factors, then, are risk:reward with time investment and capital absorption playing only a peripheral role. I have already shown that the most basic of strategies can yield a ratio that provides a positive balance on the side of reward. The question that remains is whether strategies can be constructed that generate a sufficiently high balance on the side of reward to justify the time investment. I think that they can. Despite not having detailed figures to hand to bolster my position I can at least reference my own experience in investing, following very basic strategies which has yielded more or less a 100% success rate in receiving back my invested capital plus promised interest. I have made some tens of billions of isk through investing that I would not have made otherwise, since I just wouldn't have used this time to do other things in game. Now, even if my profits had been half of this amount, thus providing a far less good isk:effort return I would still think that investing had been worthwhile for me because, again, I would not have been using the time to do anything else in game. I also know of at least a few other investors who have had similar success by following fairly simple approaches to investment (flakeys and Taram Caldar spring immediately to mind).

So, these are a few points relevant to the general context of the discussion, not necessarily in a rigid order or building together to make a single point. I will now go on to address your own argument in some more detail.

More coming - got to recharge my laptop battery first. Please wait a bit before replying so I can get the first chunk out altogether.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.06 06:30:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2011 06:30:36
The Main ArgumentYour own argument, as I now understand it, has two related elements (if I have this wrong or you want to correct or clarify any of your points please do so as what follows is really what the dispute is about). You make a sequence of positive claims, which I will attempt to split up into separate arguments.

The first argument:

-Investing as an institution is financially pointless and people should stop participating in it and facilitating it.

This is justified with the claim that:

-The likely rewards (i.e. those that arise from a rational approach rather than those that arise from blind luck) NEVER exceed a level that sufficiently compensates for the time and effort involved in acquiring them.

These claims can be combined in the following form (other formulations are possible so I don't want to claim this is perfect and authoritative but I believe it makes clear certain import features):


P1) The likely rewards of investing never exceed a level that compensates for the time and effort involved in securing them.
C1) Therefore investing as a financial institution is pointless.
C2) And from P1 and C1 it follows that people should stop participating in it and facilitating it.


(I use the P and C numbering format for the propositions rather than simply numbering them 1, 2 and 3 as this argument will later be combined with others and it is worth remaining clear on which propositions are externally justified premises (P) and which are conclusions that follow as inferences within the argument (C).)

C2 will then go on to form a critical premise in the subsequent argument about the motivations of those who do participate in, and facilitate, the institution of investing.

A important point to note about this argument is that P1 cannot merely be true for the most part. It must be the case that the likely rewards will NEVER exceed the time and effort cost in order to secure the universal conclusions in C1 and C2. If it is the case that the rewards do more than compensate for the expenditures in some cases, or even in one case, then you will only be able to draw a much weaker conclusion in C1 such that investing is a pointless endeavour FOR SOME PEOPLE. And this modification would force a modified conclusion in C2 such that only SOME people should stop participating in it, a claim that is considerably weaker than your stated formulation but which may well be more viable.

Now, it might be possible to arrive at the general conclusion that no-one should participate in or facilitate investing even with a weaker formulation of P1 if you were to add in further premises but I find no trace of such in your arguments so far and you have said that you are not interested in arguments from social harm, which is the only possibility that comes to mind for me at the moment (so one could claim that if wider social harm exceeds a certain amount then investing would have to have value for at least a certain number of people to outweigh this, fixing a bar above the single counter-example needed in the present argument).

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.06 06:32:00 - [77]
 

So, with all that being said, you need to establish P1 in order to justify C1 and C2. Before I look at your arguments on this front it is worth noting another line in your discussion as it has been multi-faceted. One element in your support for your conclusion has been the claim that I (and/or others) have not managed to justify the institution of investing, so it frequently seems that your argument both has a positive phase (making the positive claim that investing is unjustified) and a negative phase (claiming that it has not been shown that investing is justified). However, it is important to see that your claim and my claim are not symmetrical there is a far, far higher burden on the argument you want to put forward since your claim is a general claim such that no investments are justified whilst my claim is only that some investments are justified.

In your most recent post you have refined the basis for your argument somewhat. Initially, it appeared that you were making a strong claim for the truth of P1 but when challenged to substantiate this claim by showing that the evidence actually demonstrates that the likely rewards never exceed the costs you declined to do so. At the moment, no evidence has been adduced in support of this position. Rather, you summarised your position as follows:

Originally by: Elise DarkStar


You are using your selective argument to counter far broader statements than it really does. That is my problem with it. If you want to counter people's perfectly valid (notice I didn't say "correct") functional impression ("functional" in the sense that they use it to make decisions) that investing here is not a good approach to making money in this game, which I believe is fundamentally what most people are saying, then you need to properly address that point with a properly formatted argument. By cherry-picking some pretty exclusive conditions in which you can barely break-even after 12 months, but making sure that it has the almighty "numbers" and "sampling", you are committing the very common error of scientism.

I accept people's frustration that I have delineated the proper outline for what shape the argument should take without engaging it myself, tough luck. All that interests me is to counter the false argument that anyone has really proven anything so far, which brings us back to the point where everyone is just making their own decision based on their own impression. People are welcome to argue my formulation of the "proper" argument or my rejection of the improper ones, or they can engage it themselves from either side with actual facts, approximations, and assumptions. Barring that, we can all just sit here with our arms crossed, each confident in our own position.


The first thing to note here is that you admit that you are arguing from a 'functional impression', that is an understanding that has some functional value but that is ultimately subjective and is not evidentially substantiated. This is absolutely not in any way sufficient to carry you to your conclusions because it provides no means of undermining the parallel functional impression held by many people that investing is worthwhile. It is simply an assertion. The only way you can carry your argument is by demonstrating that your functional impression is not only valid but true. If you are unwilling to do so then you must surely see that you have no persuasive grounds for your wider claims beyond 'It seems like this to me'.

One more chunk to come.

Claire Voyant
Posted - 2011.09.06 07:02:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: RAW23
Despite not having detailed figures to hand to bolster my position I can at least reference my own experience in investing, following very basic strategies which has yielded more or less a 100% success rate in receiving back my invested capital plus promised interest.

"More or less a 100% success rate" seems like a bad choice of phraseology.

Florestan Bronstein
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2011.09.06 09:04:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 06/09/2011 09:26:43

Person A: "Playing Roulette for reasons other than pure joy of gambling is pointless. Never do it with the intention of earning money."
Person B: "But I earned over $9,000 playing Roulette yesterday. Clearly playing Roulette to make money is not pointless for all persons at all times. You are wrong!"

pointless discussion is pointless.

to give this post some more substance:
RAW's central claim is imo not that there exists a person who has made money by investing in MD offerings or that he himself turned a profit by investing so far.
It is the implied notion that his strategy could easily be replicated by other investors and would allow them to make profit as well (i.e. implications about his strategy being not overly reliant on luck/chance, not being reliant on any traits/abilities exclusive to RAW, still being viable when executed by many/all investors at once, ...).
"There exists a person that has made profit by investing in MD offerings" is a fairly weak and trivial claim.
"There exists a well-defined, reproducible strategy that allows investors to make profit by investing in MD offerings" is a much stronger claim that RAW seems to imply frequently and that has imo to be treated separately.

Tekota
The Freighter Factory
Posted - 2011.09.06 09:06:00 - [80]
 

This thread has seen some excellent arguments for the validity of investing along with solid facts demonstrating the returns that can be made.

It's worth stating my position that I agree fundamentally with these arguments and the facts presented look sound.

Facts presented on the other side however are a little light, and whilst I'd dearly love my personal data to back up the position that investing is a worthwhile pursuit, they currently don't. Anyway, witholding data that doesn't fit my personal opinion does the cause no good and is downright unscientific, so without further ado I present my small slice of shame:
  • Lifetime of seven public investments (woo!)

  • One broke-even (EBank, my max exposure was around 400m, shut when I had 1m, interest received prior + single share dividends have me calling this a personal break-even)

  • Six paid out, returning 240m interest

  • One scammed (Lui Kai), costing me 500m.

  • So net profit from my investing is currently: -260m.

Now obviously this is a tiny data set representing a very small number of investments for very small sums of isk; as such it can't be taken in isolation but taken in context with all the other data out there. When taking the other data into consideration, along with the arguments presented above, I still contend that investment can be a worthwhile and profitable pursuit and will continue to do so as my situation and risk analysis permits.

Oh, and for the record, given that I'm currently in debt to the MD community, well, to flakeys, that bond is running as expected and described and I'll reaffirm my total commitment to pay out exactly as promised - I realise that any post I make in relation to investment whilst I have a debt outstanding could be misread as an indicator one way or another as to my own intentions

Tekota
The Freighter Factory
Posted - 2011.09.06 09:42:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Florestan Bronstein
Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 06/09/2011 09:26:43

Person A: "Playing Roulette for reasons other than pure joy of gambling is pointless. Never do it with the intention of earning money."
Person B: "But I earned over $9,000 playing Roulette yesterday. Clearly playing Roulette to make money is not pointless for all persons at all times. You are wrong!"

pointless discussion is pointless.

to give this post some more substance:
RAW's central claim is imo not that there exists a person who has made money by investing in MD offerings or that he himself turned a profit by investing so far.
It is the implied notion that his strategy could easily be replicated by other investors and would allow them to make profit as well (i.e. implications about his strategy being not overly reliant on luck/chance, not being reliant on any traits/abilities exclusive to RAW, still being viable when executed by many/all investors at once, ...).
"There exists a person that has made profit by investing in MD offerings" is a fairly weak and trivial claim.
"There exists a well-defined, reproducible strategy that allows investors to make profit by investing in MD offerings" is a much stronger claim that RAW seems to imply frequently and that has imo to be treated separately.


That's a very effective soundbite but I'd suggest a rather poor argument. Because by that argument any decision, financial or otherwise, in Eve or in real life could be considered a gamble.
Investing in a personal pension for reasons other than the joy of gambling is pointless
Devoting R&D time to developing a new product for reasons other than the joy of gambling is pointless

Now in real life we can mitigate against the chances of our pension fund failing or our new product flopping through laws and experience but both ultimately boil down to a gamble which could see us destitute in old age or our company bankrupt.

Gambling however is different in that we know the odds from the outset. We know, before we lay any money down that the odds are against us. We can mitigate the damage done on the roulette wheel (eg. quit while ahead, don't put your life savings on one number) but we can never mitigate against the odds and we know that long run we will lose. With investments and decisions in both Eve and real life we can mitigate both the odds AND the damage; not entirely of course, or arguably even particularly well, but arguably (and demonstratably) sufficient to come out long term ahead - which is something we can never do at the roulette wheel.

Florestan Bronstein
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2011.09.06 09:45:00 - [82]
 

Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 06/09/2011 10:04:32

Lack of secondary market and thin primary market means you are likely to incur a huge opportunity cost while waiting for some new investment opportunity (that is suitable to your strategy) to pop up after your old investment has been paid back in full.

I guess that this effect alone puts many strategies that are based solely on investment into the negative (relative to comparable in-game options).

edit:

Quote:
With investments and decisions in [...] Eve [...] we can mitigate both the odds AND the damage [...] to come out long term ahead.

That is what I claim RAW is claiming Razz

To defend this claim he dismantles the claim
Quote:
It is impossible to come out long term ahead with investments and decisions in Eve.

that reduces the original "we" to "I" (or "there exists one person that") and discards the distinction between being successful by manipulating the odds and getting lucky on given odds ("long term" is a question of definition so I leave it out here).

I don't think we really care whether RAW himself is successful or not (maybe he can simply use his 3rd eye to look into the future) - we care whether his strategy is well defined so we could reproduce it ("just look into the future" would be a bit too fuzzy for that) and whether it would be somewhat reliably successful when reproduced by other investors.



Tekota
The Freighter Factory
Posted - 2011.09.06 10:08:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Florestan Bronstein

Lack of secondary market and thin primary market means you are likely to incur a huge opportunity cost while waiting for some new investment opportunity (that is suitable to your strategy) to pop up after your old investment has been paid back in full.

I guess that this effect alone puts many strategies that are based solely on investment into the negative (relative to comparable in-game options).


This bit I'd certainly agree with. "Are there better things people could be doing?" Certainly. It boils down to the side questions of "Are there better things people have the skill or knowledge to be doing?" and "Are there better things people can be arsed to do?". The latter one is particularly relevant to Eve and one I personally have great affinity for because at heart I'm lazy. If you have X billions but only have the skills, knowledge or boredom threshold to make use of Y billions then putting X-Y into use someplace else is worthwhile even if it's not making as much as you could do elsewhere.


Originally by: Florestan Bronstein

Quote:
With investments and decisions in both Eve and real life we can mitigate both the odds AND the damage [...] to come out long term ahead.

That is what I claim RAW is claiming Razz



Oh. Oops? :D Not sure if that puts me and Raw at cross purposes or not. The point I was trying to make was that in gambling (eg roulette) we can never change the odds and the odds are always against us. Investments both in Eve and real life are arguably gambles dependent upon one's choice of semantics but we can affect both the odds AND mitigate against damage. The downside is that we never really know the true odds, the upside is that we know we can (and demonstrably can, but note not "will") come out over the course of a lifetime, ahead.

Surely if that statement isn't correct then anyone investing in a personal pension for reasons other than the joy of gambling is a fool. I'd argue they're not :D

Tekota
The Freighter Factory
Posted - 2011.09.06 10:21:00 - [84]
 

On second look I think I see what you're getting at.

I was countering your statement that put Eve investment alongside roulette as just another gamble but in attempting to show that Eve investments aren't just another gamble (because if they were then real life investments and decisions would also be) I ended up using gambling terminology and actually describing Eve investments as just that, a gamble, albeit one in which we can affect both odds and mitigate against damage.

I can concede on that one, it's down to semantics. Either Eve investments are a gamble in which we can change the odds and mitigate against damage just like any other decision or Eve investments aren't a gamble because we can change the odds as well as mitigate the damage.

Let me rerun over Raw's musings, see if there's any way I can disagree vehemently with him as I'm always up for a good argument :o)
As a starter though, I'd suggest that an "investment strategy" doesn't have to be replecable by all to be valid, in the same way that I don't know (and I don't expect everyone else to know) how to run a pension fund. (conceding side argument that recent years have shown just how full of it those that claim to know how are).

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.06 11:03:00 - [85]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2011 13:55:33
Now, I get the impression that you think your position is secured unless I can disprove it. But this is not the case for you are explicitly claiming that your impression is sufficient to justify the claim that other people should change their behaviour. I need not make any such claim for mine. That is, my impression of the value of investing has served me very well on a practical level and I am satisfied with the returns it has provided me but you are claiming that my impression is incorrect without offering any support for this claim other than that it seems so to you. On the basic level, I do not need to persuade you of anything as I am not claiming that you should change the behaviour that follows from your impression (which is not to say I have not tried to offer some arguments in that direction; it is just to say that I don't actually need to) but you are trying to persuade others that their behaviour should change and you are also using your conclusions to pass judgement on other peoples' motivations. Without providing the actual arguments that you decline to provide your claims have no force at all. For them to be anything other than mere opinion you do need to show (numerically?) that P1 is the case, not just state that it seems to be the case to you.

In addition, your unwillingness to even delineate what you think would be the minimum required rewards for effort expended make it impossible to actually respond to your claim. Until you formulate your justification for P1 in a more rigorous way there is no way to counter this justification. I could, for instance, go back to the data and try to show that X rewards follow from Y effort but this is a pointless endeavour until you let me know what values of X and Y will be sufficient. I have offered an argument from the data that shows that some (minimal) positive value of X is available for some value of Y and you have stated that this is an insufficient value of X, so you are clearly working with informal conditions. But until you make these conditions explicit it is impossible to engage with you on this point and your demands that I should, in fact, engage properly ring hollow. So, the challenge is for you to state what conditions what refute your claim that P1 is the case.

Personally, I am not sure that such conditions can be presented in an absolute form and this may be why you avoid doing so. In my contextual comments above I have indicated that I think acceptable values of X and Y will be, to a very great extent, subjective matters. But your argument absolutely requires that there be an objective fixed lower boundary to this ratio or it will be impossible to make the claim even that the minimal case I have used as my example so far is inadequate. Your rejection of this example suggests that you do indeed have an objective lower boundary in mind that will apply to all investors but until you either put it forward or reformulate your position there is no way to advance the discussion on this point and no way to take your wider argument as persuasive.

My own view is that there will be different ratios for different people and that the rewards available are sufficient for at least one investor myself. And if they are sufficient for me then P1 is not the case and, thus, C1 and C2 do not follow. So you need both to put forward your view of the lower boundary and to show that I am in error in thinking that investing does satisfy such a boundary for me (possibly by showing that I could use the time and effort spent more fruitfully although your comments on this point will need to take into account what I say about time expenditure in my contextual notes above). Until you offer these things at a minimum you do not have an argument, only a gesture towards there being the possibility of an argument. But such a gesture is in no way sufficient to justify your claims about how other people should act and nor is it sufficient to ground your claims

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.06 11:19:00 - [86]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2011 11:22:05
Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2011 11:21:08
Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2011 11:20:25
Originally by: Florestan Bronstein
Edited by: Florestan Bronstein on 06/09/2011 09:26:43

Person A: "Playing Roulette for reasons other than pure joy of gambling is pointless. Never do it with the intention of earning money."
Person B: "But I earned over $9,000 playing Roulette yesterday. Clearly playing Roulette to make money is not pointless for all persons at all times. You are wrong!"

pointless discussion is pointless.



I'm sure you're aware that this doesn't really characterise the substance of the argument.
Quote:

to give this post some more substance:
RAW's central claim is imo not that there exists a person who has made money by investing in MD offerings or that he himself turned a profit by investing so far.
It is the implied notion that his strategy could easily be replicated by other investors and would allow them to make profit as well (i.e. implications about his strategy being not overly reliant on luck/chance, not being reliant on any traits/abilities exclusive to RAW, still being viable when executed by many/all investors at once, ...).
"There exists a person that has made profit by investing in MD offerings" is a fairly weak and trivial claim.
"There exists a well-defined, reproducible strategy that allows investors to make profit by investing in MD offerings" is a much stronger claim that RAW seems to imply frequently and that has imo to be treated separately.


This is more uesful but actually my claim is a combination of the two. All this argument requires is that at least one person succeed in their investments on the basis of a rational strategy. So we do need to get rid of luck but we do not, for the sake of the current argument, need to claim that that individuals' strategy is reproducible. If at least one person can have good reasons for investing then the universalised claims that no-one can are defeated, so I focussed purely on the actual position that has been articulated by Elise. You may consider this to be a weak and trivial claim but at the moment all I am trying to do is respond to the actual argument and I have tried to avoid bringing in additional claims (which will then have to be argued for) if they are not required. The claim about reproducible strategies is one that might have to be addressed if Elise were to reformulate her argument but is non-essential at this point. However, I have also used the claim that at least one strategy can produce some returns but this only to illustrate to Elise the requirement that she actually put some flesh on the bones of her argument and provide some boundaries that can be engaged with. Until those boundaries are identified there is not much point discussing any particular stratregies and we don't yet know what conditions they must fulfil.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.06 11:33:00 - [87]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2011 11:37:18
Originally by: Florestan Bronstein
Quote:
With investments and decisions in [...] Eve [...] we can mitigate both the odds AND the damage [...] to come out long term ahead.

That is what I claim RAW is claiming Razz



Actually, no. I'm claiming something different (here) to what you claim I am claiming Smile. This is what I began with (and also showed to be true, insofar as my limited sample allowed). However, Elise has imposed further (reasonable) conditions, noting that the figures must also take into account time investment and capital absorption and must show not only that one can come out ahead but come out far enough ahead to some undefined extent. Unfortunately, due to the lack of definition this can't really be engaged with so I have confined to engaging on a more restricted level.

Quote:

To defend this claim he dismantles the claim
Quote:
It is impossible to come out long term ahead with investments and decisions in Eve.




My primary aim is to show that this has not been proven but does need to be proved rather than to try to prove the positive case. As such, I claim that my 'functional impression' is not undermined by Elise's argument.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.06 11:41:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2011 11:41:25
Originally by: Claire Voyant
Originally by: RAW23
Despite not having detailed figures to hand to bolster my position I can at least reference my own experience in investing, following very basic strategies which has yielded more or less a 100% success rate in receiving back my invested capital plus promised interest.

"More or less a 100% success rate" seems like a bad choice of phraseology.


It's not perfectly precise but seems a reasonable way of formulating 'close to 100% with a small margin allowed'. The reason for not claiming 100% is because one 100mil investment did fail but the failure actually netted me a 5bil profit since I only took that investment because I had another investment with the same guy that was massively overcollateralised. I could have disentangled the two for precision but the 100mil loss would still be a trivial one.

Florestan Bronstein
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2011.09.06 12:03:00 - [89]
 

If one single counterexample is enough to satisfy your requirements of logic how do you distinguish between that case being due to luck or a working strategy?

In any case have fun with your intellectual ************ ... when you are done you will probably have reached agreement on a set of ridiculously narrow logical statements (that nobody cares about) while leaving the real questions (viability of MD investments for the general investor, value of present MD as an institution for the community) unaccounted for.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.09.06 12:29:00 - [90]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2011 12:55:59
Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2011 12:54:04
Edited by: RAW23 on 06/09/2011 12:46:04
Originally by: Florestan Bronstein
If one single counterexample is enough to satisfy your requirements of logic how do you distinguish between that case being due to luck or a working strategy?


That is something I'm trying to work out. Any suggestions? On a preliminary basis I would note that those who follow strategies that appear to be quite similar to mine, or at least strategies that lead to picking the same types of investments that I would pick, appear to have a similar degree of success. I'm not a mathematician so I'm not sure precisely how to formulate a mathematical argument that these patterns diverge from pure luck. I'm also not sure that sample sizes for individual investors will be big enough to make compelling arguments on this front but welcome any suggestions on how to proceed.

Btw, these are not MY requirements of logic. If I have formulated the argument correctly as having a generalised or universal application then it is simply basic logic that any universalised proposition is refuted by a single counter example. I can't claim credit for that rule.

Quote:

In any case have fun with your intellectual ************ ... when you are done you will probably have reached agreement on a set of ridiculously narrow logical statements (that nobody cares about) while leaving the real questions (viability of MD investments for the general investor, value of present MD as an institution for the community) unaccounted for.

Look, I agree that those questions are more important. That does not provide a license for simply talking past other people though. I don't think that addressing the logic of a claim is intellectual ************. It is important to have that discussion in order to clarify eactly what points are in play and to avoid framing arguments that are not actually responsive. If someone says 'All X are Y' it is perfectly valid to respond that 'At least one X is not-Y' as this is the correct way of disproving the claim. Once that claim is out of the way then other discussions can be had on other points. But you are not going to achieve any sort of clarity in an argument if you only address those bits that are of direct interest to you and ignore foundational elements purely because they don't immediately approach the stuff you want to talk about.

Can you perhaps tell me how you would engage in detail with Elise's claims?

Edit - In short, it is not a zero sum game. Me having this discussion with Elise (which is not entirely focussed on the investment market but is also a lead in to my responses to Elise's claims about personal psychological motivations, claims which follow from those that I am currently engaging with and the analysis of which will depend to an important extent on the conclusions in this first phase of argument) does no prevent me, or others, having a discussion about different but related points. If you want to have that discussion, great. Tell me what you think the points at issue are and I'll do my best to engage with them, as I'm sure others will too. But *****ing and whining about people having a discussion that you are not interested in does nothing more to further the discussion you do seem to be interested in than any possible intellectual ************ on the behalf of others.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only