Explains why you do not decrease tail risks by increasing benefits, you decrease tail risk by decreasing tail risk. This is a very short exposition of a fallacy quite generalized, but particularly present in discussions concerning the benefits of GMO. Biologists dealing with probability have a problem with tail risk. —- Also sows why “Pascal’s wager” has nothing to do with risk arguments. — Technical Note: By “variance” is meant in the lingo of the author the scale of the distribution: this is a Student T with infinite variance (as one can see above) and \sigma is the scale.
Month: April 2015
Poker and Antifragility
For the Poker Asia Pacific website, Australian poker player Daniel Laidlaw discusses Nassim’s books and how they reframed his thinking about poker.
Nassim’s Mistake About Power Laws
On twitter, Nassim refers to a “mistake” he made “about power laws with ‘near-infinite’ but not infinite support.” He explains in this document: