Slashdot Mirror
CNBC Software Flaw Worth $1 Million?
Strudelkugel writes "BusinessWeek tells the story of one obsessive fan who unraveled a software glitch worth one million dollars. Jim Kraber was a regular CNBC viewer, and when the opportunity arose he took the 'Million Dollar Portfolio Challenge' very seriously. At one point, he was spending 12 hours a day on the contest, using three computers to trade 1,600 different portfolios in a theoretical stock game. His efforts got him into the top 20 finalists, but in the last round of trading he noticed some unusual patterns. 'One trader had a stream of near-perfect picks, consistently placing huge bets on shares that soared in after-hours trading. Kraber suspected the trader and perhaps others were getting help from someone who was changing their picks after the stocks' increases — and he quickly notified CNBC ... Kraber says CNBC rebuffed him at the time, but now it looks like he may have been right.'"
I find that Marketing departments are completely unfit to provide a secure platform for fun & just competition.
It usually is a very talented guy, who however has his focus on the looks, not the engine.
I once, for curiosity's sake took part in one contest. Scoring poorly, I began to analyze the inner workings of that FLash site.
I have quickly found that the answers to the trivia question were stored in plaintext in my browser cache!
I notified the organizers, but no actions were taken, I also soon began to notice how people bagan to score more than it was possible according to the game's rules.
Eventually, they didn't change a thing, except banning people beyond certain score, in the end all my friends got the prizes, CD players, cups etc.
One year later there was a new contest, almost identical glitches, this time however I decided not to get my friends in trouble, just in case.
Capitalizing on real software glitches is something that happens frequently on more volatile markets like the foreign exchange (fully automated since for retail brokers since 2000). Once the cat gets out of the bag however, the immense loss of the brokers (who usually automatically place orders opposite the sheeple, who are expected to lose on average) causes an alert. Nobody can fool the money markets on things like this for too long.
On the other side, automated trading means that brokers can engage in dirty practices like sending incorrect data to a particular client connection to trigger a trade (they call this stop hunting). Again, this is found out when clients compare data streams from more than 1 broker.
Dangerous stuff. If you are good, try to stay invisible.
Only to those who usually lose at it. Would you go into a business with that attitude? Trading - and business ventures - should be a highly-calculated risk at the very least: Otherwise just throw your money away at the track and be done with it.
This reminds me of an old email/fax scam trick. You start sending 1600 messages to people on a stock that's going to have big news the next day, either very good or very bad, no one knows. To 800 of those people, you say it will be good, and the other 800, you tell them it will be bad. The next day, you take the 800 who you predicted the right answer for, take another stock with big news coming out, and 400 of those people will end up with the right answer. Then 200, and on the 4th day, 100. Now for those 100 remaining people, you send a message saying that you've been giving valuable stock picks for the past 4 days and how much would they be willing to pay for your tips. The moral, everyone is a winner when your losers don't count. If you were hoping to find a good stock trader from this contest, this wasn't the way.
As for the bigger picture, I'm not a fan of "trading", though it does have it's place. I'd rather use the market for long term "investing" and doing something that provides value to the world with the rest of my time. But just like with power and politics, money corrupts, so we should expect that people will abuse the system and just do our best job ensuring we aren't the ones they are abusing.
The Higher Criticism, which started out in Germany in the 19c with the aim of establishing a definitive chronology of Biblical events, laying out exactly what the historical evidence for them was, and to data all the various books, used this as a criterion. Scholars still do.
The rule is that if some publicly dateable event is clearly forecast in a text, the text was written after it. How long after is a question. Hume made a similar point. Miracles are by definition violations of natural law. To the extent that they are miraculous, it must be more probable that the natural law held and that either experimental conditions were not correctly reported or the story is false. So they end up either not having happened, or not being miracles.
Funny to see this stuff coming up in exactly the same reasoning about stock market predictions....
My roomate found out at a certain sports book online they had a bet on the Kentucky Derby that paid some good odds, like 100-1 if you just clicked on the random selection button, instead of choosing horses. The trick was you just keep clicking it, sure you got some crappy horses, so he would obviously lose $20 on those cards, but just keep clicking it, eventually you would get one of the favorites, and instead of the regular 2-1 odds, you got the 100-1. So that $20 x 100, got him $2000, minus the crappy betting cards he had to get. The next race they got rid of the random betting button :)