People explain why you can’t beat the market in two ways. Either it’s rigged, or you’re not smart enough. Both miss the point.

The real problem is that the market isn’t one game. It’s a bunch of different games happening at the same time, on the same board, with the same pieces, but under completely different rules depending on who you are. Most people don’t lose because they play badly. They lose because they don’t realize which game they’re in.

Why This Is Harder Than Any Other Game

Every competitive game humans have come up with is simpler than markets. Chess has about 20 moves per turn. Go has about 250. Real-time games like League of Legends add execution pressure, fog of war, and team coordination on top of that.

Markets are past all of them. Four things make them different.

The game rewrites itself. A strategy that works attracts money. More money changes prices. Changed prices kill the strategy. In chess, no move you make changes the rules of chess. In markets, the rules shift based on how people play. The game mutates in response to its own players.

You never see the full board. In Go, both players can see everything. In markets, the relevant information includes geopolitics, weather, psychology, corporate fraud, central bank policy, and whatever is happening in a CEO’s personal life. Most of it is hidden, delayed, or just wrong.

You can’t see your opponents. The other side of your trade could be a retiree moving money around, a hedge fund closing a position, or an insider who already knows what’s about to happen. You don’t pick who you play against and you can’t tell how good they are.

There’s no finish line. You can’t get checkmated. There’s no final score. Which means losses can always become “I’m just early.” Every other game ends. This one doesn’t.

Complexity scale:

Chess → Poker → Go → League of Legends → Markets
 20        ~5    250    real-time +           all of
moves/   hidden  moves/  fog of war +        the left +
turn     cards   turn    coordination        reflexivity +
                                             infinite players +
                                             no win condition

Six Games, One Board

Here’s the framework. The market isn’t one game with a skill ladder. It’s six different games being played in the same place. And they stack. Each one above requires something the one below doesn’t have.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  ACCESS        Insider knowledge, connections    │ ← information you shouldn't have
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  STRUCTURAL    Market making, HFT, liquidity    │ ← co-located servers, exchange access
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  SIGNAL        Proprietary data → predictions   │ ← alt-data pipelines, ML at scale
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  SYSTEMATIC    Quant process, factor exposure   │ ← tooling, discipline, AI-augmented research
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  ANALYTICAL    Fundamental research, valuation  │ ← domain knowledge, time
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  NARRATIVE     Vibes, sentiment, stories        │ ← a brokerage account
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
  Each level up requires new data, infrastructure, or capital to unlock.
Game What the edge is What you need to unlock it
Narrative Sentiment, vibes, stories A brokerage account and an opinion
Analytical Better understanding of what a business is worth Domain knowledge, financial literacy, time to research
Systematic Quantitative process, run at scale Tooling, programming ability, discipline to follow a process
Signal Proprietary data turned into predictions Alt-data pipelines, ML infrastructure, serious capital for data acquisition
Structural Profiting from how markets work, not from predicting prices Co-located servers, exchange memberships, regulatory approvals
Access Knowing things other people can’t know Being in the room, or close enough to it

Each level up isn’t just harder. It requires something fundamentally different. You don’t graduate from Analytical to Systematic by getting smarter. You need different tools, different infrastructure, and often different capital. A jogger doesn’t become a Formula 1 driver by running faster. They need a completely different vehicle.

Getting better at the Narrative game will never get you the returns available in the Signal game. Picking the wrong game costs you more than playing your game badly.

Above the Game

Some players aren’t even competing for returns. They run the arena.

┌───────────────────────────────────┐
│  SOVEREIGNS                       │  Can flip the table
│  (nation-states, SWFs)            │
├───────────────────────────────────┤
│  RULE-SETTERS                     │  Write the rules
│  (Fed, SEC, regulators)           │
├───────────────────────────────────┤
│  INFRASTRUCTURE                   │  Tax every transaction
│  (exchanges, index providers)     │
├───────────────────────────────────┤
│  ┌─────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │      THE SIX GAMES          │  │  Compete for returns
│  │    (all the players)        │  │
│  └─────────────────────────────┘  │
└───────────────────────────────────┘

Infrastructure takes a cut of every transaction. Exchanges, clearinghouses, index providers, data vendors. When S&P adds a stock to an index, billions of dollars move automatically. These players don’t need to be right about anything. They just collect rent.

Rule-setters decide the rules everyone else is trying to model. The Fed doesn’t predict interest rates. It decides them. When the SEC approved Bitcoin ETFs, hundreds of billions in new flows opened up overnight. One regulatory decision can create or wipe out an entire market.

Sovereigns can flip the whole table. Sanctions, capital controls, currency interventions. A sovereign wealth fund can move a market just by showing up or leaving.

The higher up this stack you go, the less skill matters. These players don’t play the game. They shape the board.

Marked Cards

Then there are insiders. They break the whole framework because they’re not playing better. They already know the answer.

Hard insiders are corporate officers and deal advisors trading on information that isn’t public yet. Illegal. Sometimes prosecuted. Soft insiders are people like engineers who can feel demand shifting before it hits earnings, or lobbyists who know which way a regulation is going, or VCs who see private metrics that tell you where public markets are headed. Mostly legal, definitely gray. Political insiders are legislators trading on policy knowledge. The STOCK Act makes it illegal. Nobody enforces it. Connected capital isn’t inside the room, but close enough to the room that information leaks to them through relationships. You can see this in the unusual options activity that shows up before almost every big acquisition. Somebody always knows.

These people haven’t found a better chess move. They’ve read the last page of the book. And they make the game harder for everyone else, because some of what looks like random market movement is actually people trading on things that haven’t been announced yet.

The Index Paradox

Given everything above, here’s the strangest part. The best move for most players is to stop playing.

An index fund has no strategy. It holds everything. It doesn’t think. It beats the majority of active participants because it has no research costs, almost no transaction costs, never panics, and captures the economic return of owning businesses without trying to compete.

No other game works like this. There’s no chess equivalent of “don’t play, collect the average score of everyone, and beat 80% of them.” In markets that’s a real option and it works.

This sets the floor. Whatever you do, you have to beat this. Not just make money. Make more than you would have made doing literally nothing. After trading costs, after taxes, after the time you spent thinking about it.

What’s the Highest Level You Can Actually Play?

This is the question the whole framework builds toward.

Look at the stack again. Access requires connections you probably don’t have. Structural requires exchange infrastructure and regulatory approvals. Signal requires millions in data acquisition and ML infrastructure.

For most individuals, the realistic ceiling is the Systematic game. You need programming ability, good tooling, and the discipline to follow a quantitative process. That’s a real unlock, but it’s an unlock most technically skilled people can actually reach.

AI shifts the ceiling here. One person with good tooling can now chew through earnings transcripts, SEC filings, patent data, job postings, and alternative data at a throughput that would have cost seven figures in analyst salaries five years ago. The edge isn’t some superhuman insight. It’s coverage. You can look at more things more consistently than any single human analyst.

But the ceiling of that game is specific. You’re hunting for mispricings in places where big money can’t go without moving prices. Micro-caps, weird special situations, post-spinoff equities, niche sectors with almost no analyst coverage. Your edge is that the space is too small and too annoying for institutional capital to bother with.

So what can you actually make?

Honestly, a few percentage points over the index per year. Sustained over a long time. With real variance and stretches where you underperform and wonder if the whole thing is broken.

Not 60%+ annual returns like Renaissance’s Medallion fund. Those come from the Signal and Structural games at a scale and speed you can’t touch as a solo player.

Realistic annual returns by game:

Narrative:     negative after costs (most retail traders lose money)
Analytical:    roughly index-matching after effort and fees
Systematic:    index + 2-5% in favorable conditions, with dry spells
Signal:        10-30%+ (requires massive infrastructure investment)
Structural:    consistent but requires institutional setup
Access:        high, but illegal or ethically gray

Index fund:    7-10% long-term average, no effort, no skill required

The index does about 7-10% a year over long periods. To justify playing actively, you need to clear that plus trading costs, tax drag, and the value of the time you’re spending. A good systematic solo player might compound at 12-15% in a good environment. That’s real money over decades. But it demands:

  • A specific theory of your edge that you could be proven wrong about. Not “I’m smart.” Something like “I find micro-cap spinoffs before institutional coverage shows up.”
  • A process that works without you needing to feel inspired or convicted in the moment
  • Position sizing where no single mistake can blow you up
  • The ability to watch yourself underperform the index for years and keep going anyway

Most of the edge available at this level comes from going where the market doesn’t look. Your advantage is the hassle. The day it stops being a hassle for bigger players, the advantage disappears.

How to Think About All This

A few things fall out of the framework.

The market isn’t your opponent. It’s the combined output of everyone playing every game at once. Beating it means beating the weighted average of all of them, including the majority who lose. The bar is lower than it sounds, but higher than most people clear.

The first decision is which game to play. Not which stock to buy. Which game. Most people never think about this consciously. The game gets chosen for them. Usually it’s the Narrative game, which has the worst expected returns of all six.

Each game above requires a new unlock. You don’t level up by getting smarter at your current game. You level up by acquiring something new: tooling, data, infrastructure, access. If you don’t have what the next level requires, you can’t play it no matter how skilled you are.

The ceiling is real. For a solo player, the Systematic game is as high as it goes. The returns there are meaningful but not spectacular. A few points of alpha over long periods. The Signal, Structural, and Access games pay better but require things individuals don’t have.

Indexing is the right default. Not because the game can’t be beaten. It can. But knowing whether you can beat it is itself an incredibly hard problem. Everyone thinks they’re above average. The cost of being wrong is years of underperformance plus all the time you spent. The “just index” advice isn’t giving up. It’s the right answer for most people in a game where you can’t reliably judge your own skill level.

The most important question isn’t whether the market can be beaten. It’s whether you can honestly figure out which game you’re playing and whether your edge in that game is real enough to clear the index after all costs. If you can’t answer that clearly, the answer is already index.

What You Learned

✓ Markets are six different games on one board, not one game with skill levels
✓ Each game above requires new data, infrastructure, or capital to unlock
✓ Picking the wrong game costs more than playing your game badly
✓ The highest realistic level for a solo player is the Systematic game
✓ The honest return ceiling there is a few points of alpha per year, with long dry spells
✓ Indexing is the right default because self-assessment in this game is unreliable

Resources: