Bad reporting, just go read the paper directly. They busted the coin example. I was super confused by it because it suffers from classic AM-GM inequality mista

Bad reporting, just go read the paper directly. They busted the coin example. I was super confused by it because it suffers from classic AM-GM inequality mistake. I doubted that Peters would make such a trivial mistake (he didn't). He talks about the utility of a single outcome of the game, not the expected value of 10 plays of 10 different games. In the article: Using an arithmetic mean on percent-return doesn't make any sense. If you calculate the expected value and mistakenly use arithmetic mean you'll get +5%, but it's actually roughly -5% when calculated correctly with a geometric mean. Which is why all their silly simulations come out negative.. none of which has anything to do with Peter's actual work.