Live data from Hacker News

The Battle of GameStop

paranoidenough.com

441–450 of 583 posts

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really, truly bad take. Option prices move every day. There do exist, in fact, some people who are very skilled at making money trading options. Some people do it for a living with rich people's money, and many of them have the same skillset/education as the general HN audience. If this guy actually made millions over the course of dozens of trades, it makes more sense to let him talk than to downvote him a…

I don’t have enough karma to downvote, dude. It’s also not a bad take. Institutional investors do indeed make a killing and you can do fine using i.e. the wheel strategy. But if you’re YOLOing on WSB and you aren’t an institutional investor it is almost certainly luck to turn thousands into millions.

First of all, if you're YOLOing on WSB and you are an institutional investor, you should really re-examine your choices lol.

My view is that most people don't talk publicly about windfalls, so if someone's willing to do it on a throwaway it's way more useful IMO to tease information out of him than to marginalize his comments. That's also the best way to determine whether or not he's lying.

If he's consistently lucky, then he's good.

Probabilistic tails are narrow but they do exist. By that, I mean you shouldn't assume that something isn't worth discussing just because it is improbable. That approach stifles the free exchange of thoughts and ideas, and neglects the reality that some people are in fact talented at things that most people can't do.

PS I didn't say you specifically downvoted the guy, but we as a collective have downvoted several of his comments on this article, and you as an individual are trivializing his (claimed) experience as luck.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I absolutely hate Wall Street bets and push back every time it’s brought up. The people usually winning there are people who work in finance and are pushing their stocks onto the unsuspecting folks who visit just for the memes. There is something suspicious about a sub where high ranking users often post there 100k robinhood accounts, and the SEC investing them every few months is proof I’m not the only o…

well past 100k now, u/WSBgod, u/DeepFuckingValue, and others are showing plays worth millions of $ some of these accounts "Rose up from nothing" by investing an entire portfolio of 50+ thousand dollars into extremely risky options. Either this is suspect or I'm out of touch with the average joe's risk tolerance.

DFV is up what, to $11MM right now, on his $50k investment? That's fantastic returns, but it's also only possible by the generated hype, and result of the short sellers getting screwed.

with that said, if someone spent $225 on lottery, and won $50k, no-one would bat an eye.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#443
post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's efficiency in enriching participants of the stock market. Proponents would say that it is efficienct in funding ideas that are more likely to succeed, with the partecipants in the stock market taking a commission for the transactions.

My point is that "success" on the stock market isn't always a function of doing anything useful in the real world.

My succeed was meant for the companies not the traders. A trader can succeed by being a parassite on the market, a company succeed by doing stuff. Whether there is more/too much parassitism is something I don't know.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entry level homes in non-trendy areas are much cheaper. My home is about $110k.

>My home is about $110k. Like, it was worth that when you bought it several years ago? I mean, I live in the midwest too, where it used to be possible to get a modest home in the burbs for about that price. But those homes are now gone, they disappeared over the past few years as they were purchased in all-cash transactions by flippers who threw some paint and flooring in them before selling them for twice the price.…

I bought it a year and a half ago.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that "success" on the stock market isn't always a function of doing anything useful in the real world.

the stock market is doing something useful in the real world. the aggregate success thrown off by the stock market is a measure of the usefulness of the stock market. participating in that is what enables to stock market to provide its usefulness. so, yes, success on the stock market is a function of usefulness in the real world.

This is sort of circular, the stock market can also devolve is pure speculation and go full casino, which are generally considered an example of a not-necessarily-net-positive addition to society.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#446
post #15

I've wrote this elsewhere. The thing that's clicked for me after reading the comments on wsb is that populism, amplified by the modern internet, is going to radically change the finance world in a similar way to how it radically changed our political landscape. These people aren't just investing in GME to enrich themselves. They are doing it to spite the people who they percieve as rigging the game. They are doing it…

WSB are the old stock forums / discussion boards on steroids. Back in the day, people used to pump stocks on these smaller discussion boards. Difference is, WSB has 10^6 more members. And everyone can trade via Robinhood these days.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#447
post #280
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it’s safer than just holding stock which is what 99% of people do...so how is that more exposure than your average long retirement account?

I'm not able to follow the logic. Why is it safer? Isn't the exposure from the options additive to holding stock?

no it’s not. i’m talking about covered calls which is where you sell a call against your shares. you collect the premium from the option in exchange for potentially limited upside if your sold call goes in the money at the time of expiration.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is more like beanie babies all over again. Except now that its easier to trade its happening in stocks. Populism of a companies stock doesnt really change the performance of that company. GME will implode eventually and the newest suckers or WSB will be left holding the bag.

Except that valuations alone can be decisive in shaping the fate of companies // What does this mean for GameStop? Because of traders’ bullish sentiment, a previously failing company is now in the position where it can leverage the overnight increase in value to make real, substantive changes to its business. GameStop can pay off debt through the issuance of new shares or make strategic acquisitions using its newly-v…

Yeah it opens up options, but the likelihood of a turn around is still low IMO. Its the same decision makers as before.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#449
post #440
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not quite getting what I'm saying. A bubble like beanie babies and dutch tulips is still a logical consequence of seeking financial gain. A bubble is a game of chicken. It is about knowing when to jump off. This is a new phenomena. It is no longer about just making the bull thesis or the bear thesis. It is now persuasive to make the "this will fuck over a hedge fund manager" thesis. We need to add an entirely…

This is silly. If there was no possibility for financial gain, nobody would be investing in GME.

No, I have friends who have put thousands on the line who are happy to lose it if it bankrupts Melvin Capital.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#450
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is more like beanie babies all over again. Except now that its easier to trade its happening in stocks. Populism of a companies stock doesnt really change the performance of that company. GME will implode eventually and the newest suckers or WSB will be left holding the bag.

You're not quite getting what I'm saying. A bubble like beanie babies and dutch tulips is still a logical consequence of seeking financial gain. A bubble is a game of chicken. It is about knowing when to jump off. This is a new phenomena. It is no longer about just making the bull thesis or the bear thesis. It is now persuasive to make the "this will fuck over a hedge fund manager" thesis. We need to add an entirely…

I dont understand why you consider this to be a different phenomena than a bubble.

Its still a bubble, people are still doing it for financial gain. Its just marketed as "doing this will screw hedge fund managers" to generate more hype.

Its not a new phenomena, its just a new marketing strategy.

Post reply on HN