>>>>Looks like a duck
>>>>Waddles like a duck
>>>>Sounds like a duck
>>
>>Quoting an expert: "Only four explanations can account for these remarkable results. Blair may have been an exceptionally good trader. Hillary Clinton may have been exceptionally lucky. Blair may have been front-running other orders. Or Blair may have arranged to have a broker fraudulently assign trades to benefit Clinton's account."
>>
>>Of those 4 ducks, 2 are legal and one would involve an implausible conspiracy theory. But you act as if the remaining #3 is the only duck in sight.
>>
>>Quack.
>
>The broker was caught and punished for this exact duck.
>It was his pattern of behavior.
>Occam's Razor:
> "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."
>
>Putting up 4 alternatives in a neat trick.
>It looks on first glance like odds are 1 out of 4 for each alternative.
>
>Front running would produce smaller profits, so we can rule that out. Zero odds
>Blair as an exceptional trader is remotely possible - small odds
>Hillary as exceptionally lucky is all but impossible - very small odds
>Having a broker fraudulently assign trades - The broker was caught and punished for this exact behavior. - large odds.
>
>Let me repeat: The broker was caught and punished for this exact behavior
>Nothing implausible about that.
>
>Quack Quack

Not interested in the argument but don't 'large odds' equate to 'long odds' and, if so, did you intend the opposite ?