🧵 Why aren't you a quant?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:57:18 UTC No. 16085042
You do have unpublished work in high dimensional statistical inference that you can use to make money in the markets, right /sci/?
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:04:35 UTC No. 16085050
>>16085042
DOODOOSHIT
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:33:43 UTC No. 16085204
>>16085042
Second graph:
>https://www.blockchaincenter.net/e
Bitcoin's mid-range price will go up 46% this year, then 42% the next year, then 40% the next, then 37% the next, until 11% in 2065 at which point you may as well move everything to the QQQ. I don't know how anyone can make 50% reliably but bitcoin, despite its insane volatility, is reliable and you don't even have to do anything but let it sit in your room.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:04:20 UTC No. 16085272
>>16085042
I literally have published work on high dimensional bayesian inference (in an applied physical science context) but I have zero idea how I would actually go about becoming a quant. I have no ins or connections to that world
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:14:40 UTC No. 16085293
>>16085272
Post the study, anon. I'd like to read it!
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:55:53 UTC No. 16085390
>>16085042
Technical analysis doesnt work. Qants are a fraud and Jim Simmons is a fraud too. He has high returns but so does a hot dog stand at a good location. Its easy to report big number when the fund isnt acrually looking for new investments and has settled on a few of already-proven companies.
The only good investor is warren buffet and his trick is buying up politicians.