A thread about tails -- or, bullshitting about things that no one can really know for sure.

Something you’ll hear people talk about in trading a lot is “tails.” What are they, and why do they matter so much? To discuss, I think it’s worth delving into some examples, and why they often come down to making your best guesses about things it’s basically impossible to know.
Technically, tails refer to the sections of a distribution graph that are off to the sides -- see the attached graphs. A distribution is called “fat-tailed” if it’s relatively “flat” -- that is, if the probability one of its outcomes is far from the mean is relatively high.
An example of a fat-tailed distribution might be a uniform one -- that is, where the chances of any event are equally likely. Of course the tails here are “fat” (compared to, say, a normal distribution) because they’re just as likely as the mean!
On the other hand, an extreme version of a “skinny-tailed” distribution might be a constant distribution -- that is, one where there’s actually just one possible value. Those tails don’t even exist.
This comes up in real life a lot -- insurance is a viable business because some combination of: people are bad at estimating tails for many events (losing a house in a fire, e.g.) and so overpay for it, and others can't afford the total loss, so willingly overpay.
And in finance you see it too -- super out of the money options will often trade at really high premia, exactly because people actually *over-estimate* the probability of an idiosyncratic big move, in a very “it’ll happen or it won’t so it’s 50/50” way.
So, why does all this matter for crypto trading? It turns out that evaluating tails properly has HUGE implications for the expected value of all kinds of trades. Some examples:
Let’s say two identical (or nearly so) products are trading at different prices -- maybe two BTC futures with really similar indices are trading 15bp apart and expiring in a week. How good is this trade?
Well, depends on how much you can lever up -- let’s evaluate how good it is with different leverages. If you can put the spread on for 5x your collateral on each account, you’re making 5 * 15bp / 7 = 11bp/day on your capital. Not bad, by many metrics!
But this is not *actually* riskless -- because if BTC moves enough that one of the accounts gets liquidated (let’s pretend this would need to be a 10% move, for now -- the exact amount depends on a few factors, and also on which exchanges we’re talking about). How likely is that?
Depends! This is equivalent to the question of “how big are the tails in BTC’s distribution over the next week.” You could look at previous weeks to make a guess, but maybe you expect the next week to be more or less volatile than typical.
You could look at options to determine what the market thinks about this week’s tails, but then you’d also want to look at how accurately-priced *those* have been in the past. And even still, maybe this week is weird somehow! It’s hard to ever know.
Let’s say you lose 5% in total on the trade if one of the legs gets liquidated (the loss depends on lots of things -- liquidity if this happens, how much capital it is, etc.). If it has a 5% chance to occur, your EV is now .95 * 75bp +.05 * -500bp = 46bp, or about 6.5bp/day.
A good amount worse! And replace 5% with 15%, and suddenly you’re *losing* money in EV -- and both of those seem plausible to me depending on different market conditions! So you can see that getting tails right can have HUGE implications for what spreads are good.
(Also, insert something about 100x leverage being almost always bad because then your tails are like, 95% of the relevant distribution and you’re just gonna get liquidated almost every time :P).
How about: I recognize that some product has a ton of prints REALLY far from BBO, let’s say because of giant liquidations that happen from time to time when the market moves a lot. I want to place big scales far from BBO to try and scoop those up. Seems good?!?
Maybe! Let’s say you’re placing these scales 1.5% away from BBO, and those scales are gonna get hit once a month or so, and each time the product will get back into line within a few minutes. If you can lever this up 5x, you’re gonna make 150bp / 30 * 5 = 25bp/day from this.
Seems great in EV! But if this is happening -- isn’t it possible that there are sometimes *really* errant prints? What if I get filled 1.5% away but the liquidations drive the price even further away right away? Might *you* get liquidated?
Let’s say that it needs to move an additional 10% for that to happen (as usual, this depends on actual platform specifics). If this does happen, you’re gonna end up losing 10% or so (since the product will get back in line) -- more, since you get liquidated at a *worse* price.
If that has a 3% chance to happen each time you get filled, suddenly your EV from the trade is 5 * (.97 * 1.5% + .03 * -12% (or so)) = 5%/month = 17bp/day. Still quite good!
But if it’s actually 15% and not 3%? Suddenly this trade is a loser, just like the other one. And you’re only getting one data point per month, so how can you make a good decision here?! It’ll pretty much all depend on intuition, and rational people can differ.
(This is similar to something Alameda has done in the past, and the real numbers at play *did* in fact make it such that two traders’ estimates for the tails made the decision for what size / BBO distance to do it for really different -- we still don’t know what was right!)
Now, why did I write this as a RT of a question about TRUMPFEB? Well, pricing TRUMPFEB correctly is *exactly* an application of these concepts -- Trump being president in February seems to represent a tail event, one which is pretty unlikely, but like, who knows HOW unlikely.
If you told me two experts believed the chances were 1% and 30%, I don’t think I’d be especially *shocked*. Certainly you can find plenty of people on the internet who believe the chances are either 0% or 100% -- I think both of those are certainly wrong and colored by bias.
But between 1% and 30%? I couldn’t tell you for sure which is a “better” guess. I (and Alameda) have thoughts on this, of course -- we are in the business of trying to estimate tails, and we think we’ve learned a lot about that from the crypto trading we do all the time.
But we’re never *sure* we’re right, and we’re not *sure* about TRUMPFEB, either. Looking into precedent, asking legal and political experts, trying to construct narratives around how likely even people like the Trump team thinks they are to win -- all valid heuristics.
As important as getting good at estimating tails is getting good at knowing when to be super confident about tails -- most people are WAY too confident about them, and I’d recommend all the 0% and 100% people on this one could benefit from a little sanity-checking.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Sam Trabucco

Sam Trabucco Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlamedaTrabucco

18 Nov
So, what is BTC doing right now? I don’t *know* what’s driving a lot of it directionally (I do have theories, of course, but I don’t exactly know), but given that “up” is the direction it’s chosen to go in general, there is some headway I can make in dissecting what’s going on.
So, first off, why “up”? There’s been a lot of discourse about this -- some reasons for BTC to go up I’ve seen postulated include lots of institutional buying, increased adoption, “whales,” outflows from faddish products back into BTC, influence from other markets, etc.
My take would be: eh probably a combination. I do think that Biden’s victory and the vaccines were net good for e.g. SPY which has both short- and long-term correlation to BTC in the COVID era, which contributed.
Read 26 tweets
29 Oct
BTC has been quite the roller coaster lately -- just like old times! What’s causing all the BTC volatility lately? Also just like old times, I think it’s a combo of news, SPY correlation, and “weird liquidation effects,” but with a bit of a modern twist.
First, the news. There’s been a lot of big events recently which BTC (and the broader market, but notably BTC) has reacted strongly to in one direction or the other. This is a real throwback to 2017 -- it hasn’t felt like news impacts BTC much lately.
BitMEX KYC, OKEx hack caused BTC to go down, Paypal, the Singapore bank, and general “institutiuonal adoption” caused it to go up. Mostly these were predictable and happened over a short time period, and mostly BTC reverted a bit from each of them over the next hours or days.
Read 18 tweets
9 Oct
Given that Alameda is a *trading* company first and foremost, I thought I’d share some thoughts on how we think about trading (in contrast to Sam’s thread about how we think about investing longer-term).
On some level, investing is just trading if you forget about exiting your positions, so there’s certainly a lot of overlap between our mindsets in investing vs. trading. But there are also a lot of differences, which I’ll highlight here.
The gist of all of our activities? Follow the money. If there’s money somewhere, we want to be there. And so we devote a lot of time and energy to 1) figuring out where the money is 2) getting there.
Read 25 tweets
15 Jun
I’ve mentioned a number of times how Alameda relies really heavily on human decision making, and we’d be significantly less profitable if we just let our bots run free. I thought I’d take a chance to explain one way in which that’s directly true.
So behold: one of our internal PNL graphs:
Every day we generate lots of these graphs for different segments of our trading to try to understand how things have been going lately -- we might split out by underlying coin, exchange, spot/perpetuals/quarterlies, which strategy it was, etc.
Read 22 tweets
26 May
Alameda won't be participating in this, but it does present a chance to explain how we think about the value of man vs. machine in our trading.
People hear that Alameda’s trading is “quantitative” and often assume that means nothing we do is manual, and all of our trading centers around automation. While we fairly rarely e.g. use an exchange’s website to place orders, we do a lot I’d call manual, too.
On the machines’ side, the vast majority of our trades are done by automated strategies we call bots. A lot of the work we do is in optimizing those bots -- finding and optimizing data sources, implementing and refining trading strategies, etc.
Read 16 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!