# Divergent or Convergent Strategies? Which is the way to go?

Consider first the simple convergent strategy to invest some amount $X$ in a game, if you win you simply take the winnings and keep playing a subsequent game. In the case of a loss, you believe in your belief and doubles up in the same game until finally you win. This strategy would mostly experience small winnings up until some point when the losses are huge, in other words the distribution is heavily left skewed with a fat tail.

Now consider the divergent strategy to double winnings in case the game is won, i.e. holding on winners, and turn to the subsequent game in case of a loss. This strategy does instead experience small losses up until some rare occasions when there are huge winnings. The distribution of the divergent strategies is instead heavily right skewed, also with fat tails.

Going long in options, anticipating these rare events when the stock price plummets/sky rockets, etc.

Reality is rarely black and white, and more often than not you'll probably not able to classify more complex strategies as either divergent or convergent. But in general, is there any tendency in the hedge fund industry to prefer one over the other. It feels like there are a lot of greedy managers who would prefer earning lots of money fast, then there is this rare event which causes the fund to experience great losses and possibly even go bankrupt. However, it feels like the divergent strategy is a more sensible choice to stay competitive in the long run.

By looking at the larger and more successful managers/fund, what type of strategies do they use.

-