1994-04-18 - Re: Dirty Laundry…

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@snark.imsi.com>
To: Peter Wayner <pcw@access.digex.net>
Message Hash: 064b369494b10088a2ae8434b13a3d3107a8dbe0e4e1bbb297cbc643a3bebdbc
Message ID: <9404181915.AA03763@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <199404181750.AA25465@access3.digex.net>
UTC Datetime: 1994-04-18 19:16:10 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 12:16:10 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@snark.imsi.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 12:16:10 PDT
To: Peter Wayner <pcw@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry...
In-Reply-To: <199404181750.AA25465@access3.digex.net>
Message-ID: <9404181915.AA03763@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Peter Wayner says:
> In 15 out 16 times, the progressive doubling system will work. 

No, it will not. I invite Mr. Wayner to produce a single demonstration
of this system working. A suitable test should be easy to set up.

> Notice that both Proctor and Gamble and Dell computers have recently
> sustained large losses in the futures markets. Maybe they're gambling,
> maybe they're funnelling money someplace. Who knows?

Given the sums involved, if the firms wished to launder money in this
manner they would not resort to silly martingale schemes but would
just bribe a broker to swap tickets. They could not possibly have
managed to "double the bet" often enough not to go broke. However, in
both cases, I am sufficiently familiar with the events to very
seriously doubt that any profits laundering was taking place at all.