Originally Posted by redietz View Post
Originally Posted by smurgerburger View Post
So the use of "expected loss" must have been due to his ghost writers, but the non-use of "expected value" must have been due to Walters himself.

There is no reference to "Expected Value" in the book. Zero. There are plenty of uses of the word "value," but no use of "expected value."

You can make up whatever you like (as "APs," many of you do anything to find excuses to think you have an edge). But if Walters had wanted "Expected Value" in the book, it would be in the book. "Expected Loss" is not synonymous with "Expected Value." Of course -- LOL -- the "APs" like the idea of a phrase that has a positive prediction for their activities. There is also, if you read the book, no reference to "Expected Wins" or "Expected Profit."

But I mean, really, have any of you even read the book? Because if you haven't, why would you even comment?

Is it because -- cough, cough -- you're "APs?"

I was responding to a poor argument rather than to the book that inspired it.