Whatever the reason, it wasn't because a 40 year old Dream let them down.

Hakeem's PER increased from a fairly average 14.4 to a very good 18.1 and his ws/48 rose from 0.07 to 0.14.

My best guess is that they lost because they only played the best Raptor of all time 17 minutes per game.

Thanks, I love going down these rabbit holes. I need to start using AI to structure this stuff for me, so it doesn't take so long.

Don't worry, I have Knicks thoughts

When there are more bears than people, you don't have many other options.

And here we are paying 2.8% like suckers!

Did they reduce the field size?

As is our custom, I doubt we'll get to half of the list and we'll probably spend half the time talking about stuff that's not even on it.

That's a lot of guaranteed money for a position that isn't typically super durable.

To be fair, he'd be no more obligated to make that trade at the moment mNAV flips than he is to issue new shares every moment that it's above one.

It's only selling low when denominated in dollars but the play is the conversion between shares and bitcoin, not between either and fiat.

In terms of shares and bitcoin, he'd be buying low and selling high, respectively.

Obviously I agree with that

I remember one of my grad school officemates getting super bogged down in different standard errors.

He was doing something that didn't neatly match any convention and there were about half a dozen plausibly correct methods to choose from, so he ended up spending weeks on making these big ugly tables comparing his results with each of the methods.

Ahh, but were you using exactly the right kind of standard errors?

Have you been lurking or did you just find Stacker News?

Great first post! Keep 'em coming.

You know it!

That's a whole lotta money being spent on killing people

There's a more charitable and interesting read on the point about speed. Most of what researchers spend their time on doesn't ultimately change their conclusions.

The vast majority of the time our priors will be correct. Also, what @SimpleStacker or I refer to as the "naive regression", which doesn't account for any of the tricky empirical complications that can occur, will usually be correct.

Almost all of our research time is spent after forming our initial expectations and checking the naive regression results: i.e. it's usually effort expended after having arrived at the correct conclusion.

I've always been of the opinion that we should publicize more of these preliminary thoughts, while also acknowledging which potential issues have not been addressed that might change the conclusion.