[warrantofice]

Jimbo could you explain your argument a little bit more. I don't have a business background so your reference to Quant is a little over my head.
And when you refere to
" All the big boys in the market are/could act independently without any of the others"
I don't understand were i discussed investing independantly or not.

(note i was going to write some sort of a response to Jimbo but it turned out as another summary of my previous points. But i love it to much to delete it)

My point originally was about earning such a large amount of money that it become difficult to invest it properly in a given market. So for some arbitary ceiling's i would say that if you were investing your money (i'm from canada) in the Montreal stock market, once the amount of money that you managed grew to, say 100 million dollars, you have basically outgrew that market, but you could move to the NYSE and begin to invest your money there. Because there are more people and larger companies, your investment becomes much smaller as a percent of the entire exchange, thus its easier to make 'smaller' strategic investments. But when the money your investing excedes 500 million dollars then you run into problems again. Not to say you can't still make the same returns as you did with 100 million dollars, it just become much more difficult. You have to be even better at investing that money and your going to be looking at companies that generally will generate smaller margins because there so large and heavily traded.

Tying this back to poker though, the point i am making is that the same principle that occurs in the stock market, occurs in poker aswell. Obv. the poker base is much much smaller than the stock market, so the ceiling becomes much lower because of that.

I think you are wrong if you think that the stock market and poker are different. I think they are very much the same, obvs they have huge differences but the principle of both is similar. Very similar