41–50 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s lovely. Bad news is a bunch of edgelords don’t get to dictate how language is used or what it means.
Among themselves? Why wouldn't they? No one is obligated to participate.
Looks very interesting! Do you classify DD as bullish or bearish using the body of the post or the title, just like the ticker? Awesome "About" section, it answered all my other questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean you're more than welcome to share your opinion and/or be offended. I don't get why it's gotta be a generalized "triggered liberal" thing or w.e. - just seems so unproductive towards any end. If you want the language to stop, making it an us vs them thing doesn't appear to be a successful strategy. If you're just memeing then carry on. It doesn't really bother me, I just never really understand the call-to-poli…
I’ve been called an SJW for politely asking people to stop saying “retarded” or the n-word (or saying things that sound close to the n-word to allude to it). So even if you politely ask, some people will interpret it as an us-vs-them fight anyway. I think the triggered liberal comment was an attempt at levity to make the feedback less harsh so that people might have a less visceral reaction.
Fun tool. Thanks for putting it together. It's interesting to crawl through some of the entries from leaderboard people. It seems like most of their bets are neutral or slightly random, but then they'll be propped up with a lucky call on GME from January or some other single-stock pick. For example, this poster apparently just spammed GME posts during the run-up and got lucky, but if you followed their other calls (R…
I'd say that's how most people outperform, they get a lucky break with a stock that goes x10 or something.
The mistaken idea behind that is that people think risk and reward covaries. It does for single wagers, but when assessing profitability of investments, we must look at long term growth. When we do that, there's a risk level that maximises growth.
Lower risk than that gives you slower growth but with less variability. Higher risk is just stupid because it gives you slower growth and increases your risk of ruin (by getting variability over levels supported by your capital.)
----
People who actually make money on this are good at inventing their own insurance in ways that lowers their risk significantly. They make very specific, relatively independent bets that aren't just proxies for "exposure to the market".
Perhaps consider going further back in time, before GME. GME-like events have occurred, but to a smaller extent, prior to GME.
Perhaps consider including posts of people who lost money buying at the top. Few posts are of this nature, but they occur when previously popular tickers dip.
Perhaps include past trader performance. Having been on r/WSB years prior to GME, I've noticed that the _active_ community tends to be made of newly joined users. r/WSB has a huge subscriber base (reddit accounts who have "joined" the subreddit) but far fewer daily active users. Pulled these numbers in the past in an attempt to see if mentions of a stock ticker could fortell a stock's rise (effectively a forward indicator of a pump). Unfortunately, mentions lag the movement. Mentions also lag the eventual rapid dip (so you can't rely on the dip in the mentioned popularity of the stock to sell prior to the dip).
I took a gander-- the leaderboard lists 10 people making better than a 17% weekly return (3500% annualized). After extensive work cross-referencing the list with this one [1] my team was unable to find 10 candidates. Another explanation of outsized returns was deemed remotely possible but downvoted into oblivion [2]. I think it's really enticing to think you can make it rich by reading something on Reddit and doing a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among themselves? Why wouldn't they? No one is obligated to participate.
To every smoothbrain that responded thusly, if you only use a word in private amongst certain other people, then it feels a lot like we both know that’s a word you shouldn’t use.
This was really fun to browse! Consider adding a section for “worst traders” and “worst stocks” just for fun. For example, CLOV is a wsb matador.
Does anyone know if something like this for Twitter exist ?
The big issue for me is accountability. People make public claims and delete the things that didn't work out, so a lot of platforms can be gamed. On Reddit, the titles of posts can never be deleted so that provides one way to verify it. I think that's valuable if you can start auto-adding tweets/blog posts/reddit so people don't mess with their records.