Pursuing an evidence-based approach to investing (as we do) includes hearing from those whose thoughts align with ours as well as those who challenge our assumptions. In that spirit, one of my recent reads was “A Man for All Markets: From Las Vegas to Wall Street, How I Beat the Dealer and the Market,” by Edward Thorp.

That’s a big book title, from a larger-than-life author. Even if he spiced up his story with a few potential exaggerations, Thorp obviously is one of the most brilliant people you may never have heard of.

A childhood genius and young math professor turned Vegas gambler turned hedge fund manager, Thorp knew his way around the data analysis block, warning a client about Bernie Madoff’s fake trades before the news went public.

He also suggests he scooped Nobel laureate Myron Scholes and collaborator Fischer Black on their insights into how to price options and other financial risks. The implication is that Nobel prize would have been his, had he played his cards right. He doesn’t say how much he earned over his career, but in the the book, he states that Citadel Investment Group was built using his market-neutral strategy, and the managing partner was worth $5.6 billion at last count.

Then there were his casino-beating tactics – employing statistical analysis to tilt the odds in his favor, plus a few tricks up his sleeves to stay in the game (such as wearing disguises once the casinos were onto him). I found this portion of the book the most entertaining.

But what about his investment advice? If anyone could crack the code on how to consistently beat the market, you’d think it would be Edward Thorp. Instead, when he tried his hand at active stock-picking, he soon discovered the same thing we did: Stock-picking advice is worthless, after-the-fact news.

The conclusions Thorp drew from there differ from our own. One of his chapter titles says it all: “Wall Street: The Greatest Casino on Earth.” While Thorp tries to apply some of his casino-beating tactics to pursue statistically significant edges over the market, we feel there’s more compelling evidence suggesting long-term investors are better served with a less dicey approach.

“A Man for All Markets” is a fun summer read for peeking inside the mind of a mathematical whiz with a flair for living and investing on the edge. When it comes to managing your money for all markets, we continue to recommend evidence-based investing.

Earlier in the month, I attended “AQR University,” held at the University of Chicago and sponsored by fund manager AQR Capital. Given how many Nobel laureates have come out of there (check out that line-up of them on the wall), we know some of the university’s intellectual capital has rubbed off on us. At least it feels that way, based on the fresh perspectives we heard at the event.

University of Chicago professor and author Nicholas Epley was a keynote speaker. I’d read his groundbreaking book, “Mindwise,” but I’d not had the chance to meet him in person.

In his presentation, Dr. Epley shared some of his research into how often we try to read one another’s minds. By frequently relying on body language or “perspective-taking,” he explained how and why our understanding of others is often off-base. What’s a better way to figure out what someone else is thinking? Dr. Epley suggests we should just ask.

We also heard from AQR co-founders Cliff Asness and Dave Kabiller. In today’s fast-paced environment in practical and academic financial economics, it’s important for us to regularly “just ask” colleagues and thought leaders what’s on their minds. This is another way we ensure our evidence-based investment strategies remain guided by peer-reviewed best practices.

For more on Cliff’s views, read this Wall Street Journal article about factor investing. In it, he expressed similar sentiments to the ones he shared with us in person.

Want to know what else we learned in Chicago? Just ask!

In “Presentation With a View,” you may have spotted this enigmatic image in the photo. What is it?

You may recognize it as a stylized rendition of an “Illustration of the Month” we shared last February. Both warn us against trying to successfully pick “winners” or avoid “losers” by chasing recent performance. Based on the data from the more detailed version, you’ve got less than 50/50 odds of picking a stock fund that is even expected to survive the 15-year period ending 2015. Picking one that not only survived but also outperformed its standard benchmark dwindles to a mere 17 percent.

Why play a game so heavily stacked against you when evidence-based investing is available instead?