Search results

Oh no worries at all. Cramer likes it and we all know Cramer is infallible. Mon' back baby. Load up the truck!

The cases where the host randomly selects a cup and the coin is underneath are cases where if the host had known, he would have picked the other cup, and the player would have won by switching. These cases are culled out of the possible outcomes if you know that the host is guessing.

I ran some computer simulations of this problem when the host knows and when the host is guessing (where it culls out the result if he shows the coin, because it is assumed that he showed a cup with no coin underneath). The results are that if the host knows, switching gives you a 2/3 chance of...

What if you are sure he did it by luck. But he in fact picked 98 cups in a row without a coin. Do you switch in this particular instance?

My problem is your idiotic posts. Some people actually like instant fills on the best bid/ask through IB. You might get price improvement on the NYSE, but then again they might just pull their bid/ask against you.

I guess since you constantly bitch about IB that makes you an amateur? Otherwise, if you were a "pro" trader, you would be benefitting from IB in every possible way, right?

So you are telling me that if you played this game once, and the host turned over 98 cups and no coin was underneath and he did not mention whether his actions were based on knowing or luck, that you would not have enough information to switch even though the physical result of his actions is...

There is a story. In the story, you play the game only once. The story mentions nothing of whether the host randomly turns over the 98 cups or actually knows that those 98 cups do not have anything under them. You just know that all 98 cups turned over do not have the coin. Do you switch...

You've got to be kidding me, right? The coin knows the intent of the host? If there were 100 cups and the host randomly flipped over 98 of them and there was no coin underneath them (the host got very very lucky), you are telling me you wouldn't switch?

The story says the host turns up the cup without the coin. It is a given fact. It does not matter whether the host did it by luck or by knowing.

But the story says the host flips over an empty cup. It says nothing about whether the host knew that the cup would be empty before he flipped it. He could have just taken a random stab at which cup to flip over. And yet still the probabilities remain the same. It is better to switch. So...

No it must be true because Cramer has said multiple times that "they finally listened to me." Just trust in Cramer. Then everything will be ok.

We owe Cramer everything for saving the markets. Without him we would be at Dow 10,000.

Cramer is awesome! Without him saying "they know nothing," the fed would not have eased! He saved the day!

But if the naked shorters are shorting illegally anyway, why would this new rule make them cover? Can't it just be ignored?

You definitely need to join the Old Farts thread.

No you don't. Slippage comes with the game and can be built into your trading models. Again, just because you can't lose the spread and be profitable, doesn't mean I can't.

The story tells you that the cup the dealer turns over does not have the coin underneath it. Whether or not the dealer actually knew in advance that there was no coin underneath it makes no difference to the probabilities involved. So I would say your statement of "the knowledge of where the...

But the story gives you the fact that a cup without the coin is turned over. Whether the dealer knows where the coin is or not makes no difference. The cup has already been flipped over and there was no coin in that cup.

And one more thing. Usually if someone is gunning for another person's position, they don't let up until that person has blown up. Who is to say if VN's fund didn't close down when it did that the market wouldn't have gone down further just to reach the real breaking point for his fund?