Search results

To me the issue is time. Let's assume I lose on my first play of the game. In that case I'd only have $150,000 if I play your way, whereas I'd still have $300,000 if I play my way. My resulting net worth gets cut by 50% if I increase my bet to 70%, and I have to wait an entire year to get a...

You're right, I made a mistake. I've corrected it in my subsequent posts.

I realize what I did wrong: my method of counting the different permutations ended up in counting some of them more than once. Ignoring the what happens in the other years besides ones set for losing is what caused the problem. The probability of having at least two losses in the first six...

That 100% doesn't seem right, does it? There's probably a mistake in my calculations which I'll have to fix later when I'm more awake.

One more thing: the odds of having at least two losing years during the first nine are ([(9*8)/2] * 6^7) / (6^9) = 36/(6^2) = 36/36 = 100%. If you have exactly two losing years during the first nine and bet 40%, you end up with $1,897,443.07. If you bet 70%, then you end up with $1,846,524.03.

First of all, I assume that Steve Wynn's odds that you're referring to are the odds that his casino will win on any one play of a game in the house. Given that, then your comparison is completely inappropriate. Games are played over and over again all day long in a casino, while our game is...

No, that is just the mathematical expectation, not a mathematical law. You could also have six losses in six years. Hence, you need to practice risk management which takes this into account.

Not if you're long options overnight and the underlying gaps severely against you. Then your position could become worthless before you have a chance to exit it.

No, you've misread/misunderstood the rules of the game. I only bet 40% ($200,000), so I can only lose 40% ($200,000). If I win, then I win $200,00, but if I lose, I still have $300,000 left, which is a pretty substantial sum that could be used to raise more capital.

Since the odds are so in my favor, I say what the hell, 40%. If I lose I still have 60% left and a year to try to get back the 40% before my next roll of the die.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/opinion/krugman-bernanke-blower-of-bubbles.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

GLD volume spike: over 800,000 shares traded.

Maybe MB Trading would work? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=188644#post2708304

You can open up a demo account with thinkorswim for free, and you'll get access to Level 2 data for free. I don't have much experience with other brokers, so I don't know how the quality of thinkorswim's data compares to others'.

Also, ADT received an analyst upgrade from Morgan Stanley. That might be a factor in this. http://www.minyanville.com/trading-and-investing/stocks/articles/Stock-Upgrades253A-No-Need-For-Intel/5/6/2013/id/49648?camp=syndication&medium=portals&from=yahoo

+1

Nope, and as a matter of fact my bias is that resistance will be broken and that GC will hit 1500 within the next week. But that is not something that I pretend to predict, it's just my bias given the limited knowledge I have of the markets, both technical and fundamental.

Also, here's the 5 minute chart. This close up look makes it clear that the area around 1485 would likely become a resistance zone.

To me Fibs are either meaningless or redundant. You can just ignore the Fibs and note that the consolidation began when GC hit a major inflection point from Sunday night that was the starting point of the huge drop that lasted until Monday evening.