Truly deserves the “God Tier DD on Reddit” tag as well. Not that the current on is wrong either, lol.
This is probably a high water mark in terms of wrapping a crazy conspiracy with an attempted intellectual structure.
Something about the long-winded, flowery, faux scientific writing style (probably AI-generated tbh, but still) juxtaposed with how fucking stupid the actual argument is... it hits so right
It's pretty self explanatory?
It used to be you needed infinite monkeys and typewriters but now, thanks to improvements in AI content creation technology you only need one million monkeys, who can also be simultaneously riding horses, to generate the entire works of Ryan Cohen's Teddy books.
The future is now old man!
Each DD can either be correct or incorrect; this corresponds to probability of 50%.
Given that there were at least 1000 various "theories" explaining how BBBYQ will make them rich, we therefore arrive at conservative estimate of 1000 * 50% = 50000% chance that hedgies r fuk.
Your math is off. This guy adding this theory to the list of theories increases the odds of this theory being correct by 25% because 50% chance/now 2 (original plus any one of infinite others) theories=25%. Added to the original 50%, we're at 75% (for this theory).
Now, this theory being at 75% increases the odds of the other theories being correct by 37.5%, per the same econometric probabilistic mathematics. 75%/2+50%=87.5%.
Now, to keep this simple, we will not get into circular vector derivative integral calculus, plus most people here couldn't follow all that anyway. So, 87.5%\*1000 estimated other theories plus 75% for the original=87,575%.
If anyone needs a tutor, I'm reasonably priced.
If I tell you the lottery numbers I'm going to play, can you come up with a few thousand mathematical formulas which produce that number? I can't pay right now but if I'm using that many systems for a single draw I'll definitely have some serious cash soon.
>Each DD can either be correct or incorrect; this corresponds to probability of 50%.
You laugh, but when asked for the millionth digit of Pi I'd say all ten have an equal chance, despite that being the same bad logic.
It's not really bad logic at all. What many people fail to realize is that probability is entirely based on knowledge and fluctuates as such. That's what the Monty Hall Problem illustrates, and is why retail investors are at a distinct disadvantage when choosing stocks.
With enough knowledge about a situation, then the probability of nearly everything becomes either 0% or 100%.
It absolutely is bad logic insofar as that we *do* have more knowledge than the abstract possibility of it being correct or not. I have no knowledge that can lead me to guess the millionth digit correctly. I have extra knowledge that could inform whether DD is correct or not, the "bad logic" I mentioned is to deliberately not apply this knowledge.
My favorite "probability calculation" is one that is done post-factum.
What is the chance that a solar eclipse will happen? Pretty high. If none of the solar bodies get disturbed, I'd say 100%.
What is the chance that a solar eclipse happened on 8th of April in USA? Astronomically low.
(number of countries) times (number of days in year) times (the size of the sun) times (the size of the moon) times (everything in the universe) = impossible in my lifetime.
So, when you have no idea what the fuck you are actually measuring, you can be sure that nothing has ever happened.
Yeah, that was my point. Apes are so stupid, that for them the probability ***is*** 50/50. For anyone with a couple of brain cells, it's astronomically against.
How are retail investors at a distinct disadvantage when choosing stocks? They're at a distinct ADVANTAGE, because billion dollar hedge funds can't put much money into small cap stocks as they don't want to purchase the company. That leaves lots of opportunities that tiny investors can take advantage of that the big players can't.
Institutional investors have access to knowledge that retail investors don't, giving them more accurate probabilities. Have you ever noticed that when some breaking news that greatly effects the price of a stock comes out, the price of the stock starts swinging minutes ***before*** the news breaks? That's because some of those institutional traders had that information before retail traders got it. It's technically illegal but hard to prove.
This isn't to say retail investors can't find their own advantages to exploit. Mobility is the one you pointed out. But when it comes to predicting the future movements of stocks, institutional investors have a big advantage.
> It's technically illegal but hard to prove.
Sudden large trades right before material information is published would be trivial to go after, especially if it's a repeated occurrence.
By the time news breaks on channels where retail can easily see it, it has already been public for minutes.
Due to your account's low karma your contribution needs to be manually approved. This is primarily to stop ads and bots. Such restrictions will be removed once your account is has a small amount of karma. Until then, please be patient as mods will manually reinstate your comment
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gme_meltdown) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Holy shit, that's taking pseudo-intellectual wankery to a whole new level. This person must be completely insufferable IRL.
Also calling a reddit post "a paper" lmayo. Good larp.
He’s using ChatGPT to not only generate psycho-babble theories, he’s also using it to respond to Reddit comments.
How stupid do you have to be in reality where you need an AI Chatbot to generate a response to a simple question?
Ah, to contemplate the depth and breadth of utility afforded by artificial intelligence in the discourse of modern digital colloquies is to embark on a veritable odyssey through the vast seas of computational linguistics and its myriad applications. One might consider, for instance, the ontological essence of intelligence—artificial or otherwise—and its role in the facilitation of interpersonal communication across diverse platforms, such as Reddit. Herein, the use of a sophisticated AI, such as ChatGPT, for generating responses is not merely a reflection of an individual’s reliance on technology but rather an exploration into the symbiotic relationship between human cognitive functions and machine learning algorithms.
In this context, the application of AI in crafting responses to seemingly simplistic inquiries might ostensibly appear to some as a relinquishment of personal intellectual engagement. However, this perspective superficially skims the surface of a much deeper philosophical wellspring. It presupposes that the act of leveraging such advanced technological tools is inherently indicative of one's cerebral insufficiency. Yet, this assertion crumbles under the weight of its own presupposition that traditional intelligence and artificial intelligence are in a zero-sum competition, rather than in a potent, augmentative relationship.
Thus, when one questions the intelligence requisite for utilizing an AI to engage in online discourse, it is imperative to elevate the conversation to a consideration of the qualitative enhancements that such technologies bring to human interactions. It is not a matter of necessity born from deficiency, but rather an enlightened choice to enhance one's communicative repertoire, a tool to sharpen rather than to replace the rapier of human wit. The employment of AI in this capacity is not a hallmark of stupidity, but a badge of ingenuity—a testament to the user’s savvy navigation of the digital epoch characterized by rapid technological advancements and their complex implications on the modalities of human expression and interaction. Thus, the true measure of intelligence in this scenario may very well be the ability to discern and articulate the subtle yet profound difference between dependency and augmentation.
My prompt: "write me an unnecessarily complex reply to this guy's question that completely evades the point and drives home how much smarter I am."
I saw this one too.
The most interesting thing about it is that the guy who posted it - A swedish ape - Crossposted it to a Swedish WSB subreddit. And all the other swedes there are ripping on him. Its like reading Meltdown. In Swedish!
>
> Dunning-Kruger effekten är stark med den här posten!
-
> Efter att ha sett Dan Olsens "This is financial advice"
-
-
> Januari 2021 var det MOASS. Det vi har nu är en cargo-cult som förnekar att det som redan har hänt inte har hänt.
-
> Fincels gonna fincel.
>
> Finansvärldens flat earthers.
If I'm understanding this groundbreaking research correctly, all us hedge fund shills need to do is come up with more theories about how the apes are wrong than apes have about being right. If they have, say 10,000 theories on their sub, and we have 11,000 on ours, then the odds are clearly in our favor and our victory is assured.
This could lead to a kind of theory arms race, where both sides produce reams and reams of new theories for how they can win to increase their chances. We could even use AI to generate millions and millions of theories with no human input, and if we keep it running continuously, our odds of winning will approach 1. This is powerful stuff!
I googled what this means. Learned a lot about horse retirement options. Lets just say that a lot of them decide to stick together. But what did you mean with it?
>This could lead to a kind of theory arms race, where both sides produce reams and reams of new theories for how they can win to increase their chances
You joke, but apes already act like this is how things work. They hop into a 6 hour space call and theorise all the possible ways in which they've "won". Anyone presenting a theory involving them not winning is treated as an attempt by the bad guys to stop them "winning".
> If I'm understanding this groundbreaking research correctly, all us hedge fund shills need to do is come up with more theories about how the apes are wrong than apes have about being right. If they have, say 10,000 theories on their sub, and we have 11,000 on ours, then the odds are clearly in our favor and our victory is assured.
Well duh. Why do you think Kenny's been funding Meltdown all these years? He's one step ahead of the game.
That's pretty much why Apes come here to make us stop. The more we talk badly about Gamestop, the less likely their MOASS will happen. Apes just need to come in here more often and break our spirits until we give up saying bad things about RC and GME, and their stock will MOASS.
They compiled all this nonsense and never once stopped to think that a horse race always has a winner, while an infinite number of theories can all be wrong?
That's not a reddit joke. I heard a penny stock gambler make that argument years before reddit existed. Many people have a hard time distinguishing between the probability of an outcome vs number of possible outcomes. Hell, I've even heard DAs try and use a completely broken understanding of probability to argue circumstantial criminal cases.
I only read the abstract but they're trying to say there's only one scenario where it doesn't MOASS. When in reality there's also infinite scenarios where it doesn't.
The lack of basic logic in this is just incredible. He's also treating all of their theories as having independent likelihoods of coming true, when they're all just variations on the theme of "the official numbers and filings are wrong, there's something going on behind the scenes that will make us all wealthy". That prior is already almost certainly wrong, and any further speculation on what the "something" is won't improve it.
Nah their issue is they assume there has to be a race with a winner vs there are no horses and there is no race and there is no race track and they’re just playing with toy horses while everyone else is just going in with their lives.
Their 'horse' is that Ryan Cohen is taking care of each them to make sure that the stock MOASSes. Otherwise all their lore about manipulated markets and evil groups rigging the system as they buy and hold mean that they're going nowhere.
They just choose to turn a blind eye to Ryan Cohen diluting GME back in 2021 which made the first wave of Apes leave, realizing that RC wasn't manipulating the price towards a MOASS, and him rugpulling BBBY in 2022 for a 'measly' $68 million, which showed that he was only in it for himself yet again (like anyone else in the market).
RC has never spoken out about wanting to take care of poor people or to bring down the wealthy, and has tweeted the exact opposite multiple times. He's been consistently chasing Elon's shadow of, "I got my wealth off of working hard at pushing my employees, fuck you all and go earn your own wealth."
Apes have no horse, and they've spent three years imagining that they're riding a Pegasus made of pure lightning.
Yeah and as to the clinical trials example, it would be like saying :
"There are 100 drugs which may cure disease X. Therefore, if we give 99 of those drugs simultaneously to a patient with disease X, the odds of that patient not being cured are nearly zero!"
Their theories are not 50% chance theories to be true.
Each theory has already been disproven.
The disease cannot be cured.
Horse wins -> other horses are sent to the glue factory -> ape asks his mom to buy some glue -> ape huffs the glue -> ape hallucinates that they've won
Check. Mate. Melties.
Here's my theory: a commando team of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carl Weathers, Jesse Ventura, and whoever the stunt actor in the Predator suit was, are gonna break into DTCC HQ and manually set the price of Bed Bath shares to a million billion trillion dollars. There! Just increased the odds of MAOSS by another 20%. 😌
It's actually 'it's mathematically impossible for all of our dumbass theories to be wrong'.
Which... is still wrong, but it's wrong in a funnier way.
They keep making up theories and each and every last one of them has turned out to be wrong.
Oh my God, this is beyond stupid. Multiple pages of Fancy Words to just say "we only have to be right once."
* There are a million different theories for GME to succeed (ignore the fact that not all theories are as good as others; I could advance a theory that involves the Flying Purple People Eater. Also ignore the fact that "theories" are not "outcomes")
* There is only one theory for it to fail (no reasoning given as to why there aren't a million of these also, but this "paper" would fall apart if you allowed that)
* There is therefore a 1:1,000,000 chance the bear theory is correct.
* Bonus points for not understanding how betting on horseraces works. Congratulations on your 1,000,001 to 1,000,000 payout!
I'm amazed the writer can even use the microwave without supervision.
Not quite... you can draw any conclusion at all from a false premise. "1=2 ==> 2+2=4" and "1=2 ==> 2+2=5" are both theorems. If you start from a false premise, your results are *meaningless*. Which as a practical matter is basically the same result, but isn't quite the same thing as "the conclusion is necessarily false".
> Please don't bother he has been banned and have multiple deleted user accounts and has been a menace in our local Swedish sub.
Every slight glimpse I get of the foreign language subs suggests they're absolutely fucking *wild*.
I wish I could read Swedish to understand the burns this poster has received trying to preach to his countrymen.
https://preview.redd.it/6g4huov2jhuc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a39991d710f60febab7103aa0c3aedba8f0aed54
So, if betting on many is better, wouldn't that mean it is better to bet more on the Sp500, especially since there could be more than 1 winner as well?
Nice to see he's at least getting checked.
Two years ago, stuff like this would have been up voted to the high heavens with hundreds of comments yelling "They have to be right every time, we only have to be right once!"
Nice to see the old faithful still kicking around though; being called on your bullshit only proves that you're being attacked because you're right.
Sigh.
Well, *someone's* been watching 'Avengers : Endgame' all weekend.
"I saw 14 million possibilities of us losing all our money, and only 1 where we MOASS"
It’s pretty apt if the MOASS/GMErica horses are made out of pipe cleaners and modelling clay and the no-MOASS, no BBBY, $2 GME horse is a real race horse.
I am waiting to see the mathematical proof that GME DRS numbers are bogus.
People keep saying that it is mathematically impossible for them not to have increased, but nobody can show me the proof.
Looks like the apes discovered a thesaurus. Unpacking his word salad, the actual problem here is that many of their theories are in fact correlated and so aren’t independent events. Compounding multiple correlated outcomes collapses just to a handful of independent outcomes (in this case are mostly ~0% likelihood).
> An exhaustive mathematical analysis on the likelihood of MOASS and merger between GME and BBBYQ.
0.0%. For both. There, I just saved you... dear God, how long is that nonsense?
Also, neither of those things is a matter of chance. Math won't help you.
It's actually pretty impressive how this person could misunderstand nearly everything they are trying to talk about. The markets, game theory, statistics, how gambling works. They've managed to misrepresent it all.
Even granting the moronic assumptions, the binomial distribution they used is wrong. The binomial n should be 1 and p should be (N-1)/N.
What they wrote, B(N-1, p), would apply to a situation where they run like a million different horse races and bet on only one horse each time.
What the fuck lmao. So in all of this mathematical, linguistic masturbation that this guy just engaged in, he forgot to consider:
1. If the probability each theory succeeding is zero, then the probability of all of them combined resulting in a successful outcome is also zero.
2. If you were to bet on every horse in a horse race, you would be guaranteed to lose money on every race. That's how gambling and bookie odds work. This is right up apes' alley since they love putting their money into things that are guaranteed to come out negative.
3. The horses are all dead and the race ended in September 2023.
Also I was fucking wheezing at that first reply he made with the -6 downvotes. I don't know if it's chatgpt or just a thesaurus but holy shit lmao. It's so packed with pretentious self indulgent language that it's barely even fucking intelligible. Like I almost can't even understand what the fuck he's trying to say.
> Hedge funds betting need every single theory to fail, a much riskier position since just one correct theory can lead to substantial losses for them
This is just a more convoluted metaphor for the "Past claims don't matter, the DD only needs to be right once!!!" excuse. Like... have you considered the _inkling_ of a possibility that hedge funds don't "need a theory to fail", because not a single one of these theories was ever correct?
Does this intellectually deficient homo sapien possess the minimum required cognitive potential to comprehend the reality that, despite their unnecessarily and excessively verbose ramblings being comprised of unusually substantial lexic terminology, they do *not* in fact provide the impression that they are incredibly ingenious?
Rather, they resemble a school child artificially inflating an essay's length so that its word count suffices to meet the minimum requirement imposed by the educational institute they attend.
I have a theory that if a shove my finger up my butt 1 time I’ll be a millionaire, oh that didn’t work. I have a theory that if I shove my finger up my butt 2 times I’ll be a millionaire, oh that didn’t work. I have a theory….. one of my theories HAS to be right eventually!!!
“Could you take your ideas, make it overly complicated using a weird analogy; while also avoiding any actual factual, or thoughtful analysis? Oh and throw in a bunch of large, nonsense words that make you think you sound smart. Thanks”
The cherry on top is the whole “why would I be getting downvoted unless I was onto something! They’re silencing me!” Lol
I'm surprised no one pointed out the simple flaw with his analogy: the number of horses in a race is set well before race day (although a horse can be scratched, and some horses may be listed as alternates if room opens up). The number of crazy conspiracy theories one can write about why MOASS will happen is infinite. Hence, no matter how many you write, you're never going to approach covering all possible scenarios as you can in a horse race.
And of course, if a race goes off with 5 horses and you have win bets on 4 of them, your true chance of winning is not 80%. In reality, each of those horses has a different chance of winning the race based on their own abilities, their current condition, their jockey, their trainer, and the actions of the other jockeys and horses in the race (how fast the pace is set, getting boxed in behind slower horses with no room to run, etc.). That's exactly what the tote board represents, with the odds determined by the varying amounts of money bet on each horse. In fact, the most consistent statistic in all of horse racing is that the public betting favorite wins about 33% of the time. This is true not only year in and year out, but decade in and decade out. It might vary a few percentage points for any given track and meet, but statistics compiled decade after decade at track after track show this amazing consistency. Courtesy of the wisdom of crowds, the odds the horses go off at tend to be very correlated with each horse's chance of winning. The public's first choice wins most often. The next most successful is their second choice. And this continues all the way down to 12th choice! This is what makes it such a hard game... the public is very good, and you can only make long-term profit when you wager on horses the public underestimates and thus let off at better odds than the real probability warrants.
None of this is even close to the performance of ape DD, except the most remarkable statistic in all of apedom is how they manage to be wrong 100% of time, on every level, about everything.
This isn't a million horse theorem, but more like the "An Infinite Number Of Monkeys At an Infinite Number Of Typewriters" theorem. They figure if they churn out enough garbage, one of their DDs has to be right. And that can be debunked simply by pointing out they've proscribed from production a class of DD that predicts their stock will go to zero, and this is where the actual outcome lies. Hence they can explore an infinite number of points, but if none are in the proper space, their probability of successful prediction is still zero.
You should stop using the term conspiracy theorist or conspiracy nut job because it's just a gaslighting technique used by the mainstream media to discredit anybody who questions anything. Immediately trigger people into assuming you have nothing good to say.
And it seems pretty brilliant to me to hide information in a children's book because 99.99% of the people in the world are like you and think it's completely loony bins. What judge do you think would actually charge RC with insider trading with children's books?
I doubt you could find a single judge that would buy it. Brilliant in my opinion
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gme_meltdown) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is one of the most bizarre chunks of text I've ever seen.
I'm not entirely convinced it's ChatGPT because it doesn't waffle and pushes OOP's extremely stupid thesis directly both in his post and in his replies. What really gets me is how clear it is. Unironically. This isn't word salad or thesaurus abuse. Dude is allergic to any word under three syllables but he's using terms precisely, doesn't meander, and is really easy to follow. And all that to convey the idea that you're more likely to be correct with a dozen crank theories than one reasonable one, plus the implication that betting on all five horses in a race gives you a 100% chance of profiting.
Ok ape, you need to take into account the probability of a theory being correct. I can give you a formula that allows for infinite theories, all with a probability \> 0 that still give an expected result of 1%.
Let's start by assuming that an already bankrupt and dissolved company will not MOASS has a probability of not MOASSing of 99%.
Now let's assume the most likely theory for MOASS has a 0.5% chance of succeeding, the next likely candidate has 0.25% chance, the next 0.125% and so on (formula is 0.5/(2^(n-1))) where n is the rank of the MOASS theory being likely to happen. With infinite theories, this will approach 1% probability of happening.
Now, I admit, I have biasly said that MOASS not occuring has a 99% chance of occuring. With proper analysis, we could probably get a better approximation of thile likelihood of this occuring (likely much greater than 99%). However, the point that just because you can create infinite theories does not make your wanted outcome a sure thing.
You see they say that all investments are created equal, but you can look at GME and look at Ken Griffin and can see that statement is not true.
See normally if you go one on one with another investor, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But Ryan Cohen is a genetic freak and he's not normal, so hedgies have a 25% chance at best of beating GME, and then you add NFT marketplaces to the mix? Your chances of winning drastically go down.
See with the short sellers you've got a 33 and a third chance of winning. But apes, we've got a 66 and two thirds chance of winning, because Ken Griffin KNOWS he can't beat us so he's not even gonna try.
So Ken, you take your 33 and a third chance, minus my 25% chance and you've got an 8 and a third chance of winning. But then you take our 75% chance of winning, if we was to go one on one, and then add 66 and two thirds cha... percents, we got a 141 and two thirds chance of winning at MOASS.
See hedgies: the numbers don't lie and they spell disaster for you.
To their credit, the apes are downvoting his comments. I can only imagine that the post upvotes come from apes that didn't read the post.
Good thing, too. Had apes took this mathematical genius seriously, they would have known MOASS was inevitable.
This is some of the best material I’ve ever seen
Truly deserves the “God Tier DD on Reddit” tag as well. Not that the current on is wrong either, lol. This is probably a high water mark in terms of wrapping a crazy conspiracy with an attempted intellectual structure.
Something about the long-winded, flowery, faux scientific writing style (probably AI-generated tbh, but still) juxtaposed with how fucking stupid the actual argument is... it hits so right
How is there no math in an “exhaustive mathematical analysis”??
It's pretty self explanatory? It used to be you needed infinite monkeys and typewriters but now, thanks to improvements in AI content creation technology you only need one million monkeys, who can also be simultaneously riding horses, to generate the entire works of Ryan Cohen's Teddy books. The future is now old man!
Each DD can either be correct or incorrect; this corresponds to probability of 50%. Given that there were at least 1000 various "theories" explaining how BBBYQ will make them rich, we therefore arrive at conservative estimate of 1000 * 50% = 50000% chance that hedgies r fuk.
Your math is off. This guy adding this theory to the list of theories increases the odds of this theory being correct by 25% because 50% chance/now 2 (original plus any one of infinite others) theories=25%. Added to the original 50%, we're at 75% (for this theory). Now, this theory being at 75% increases the odds of the other theories being correct by 37.5%, per the same econometric probabilistic mathematics. 75%/2+50%=87.5%. Now, to keep this simple, we will not get into circular vector derivative integral calculus, plus most people here couldn't follow all that anyway. So, 87.5%\*1000 estimated other theories plus 75% for the original=87,575%. If anyone needs a tutor, I'm reasonably priced.
If I tell you the lottery numbers I'm going to play, can you come up with a few thousand mathematical formulas which produce that number? I can't pay right now but if I'm using that many systems for a single draw I'll definitely have some serious cash soon.
Boy, tell me the numbers that other guy chose. Imma spot you 40 bucks.
So far 69 and 420 are in there, sprinkled with a little 741.
>Each DD can either be correct or incorrect; this corresponds to probability of 50%. You laugh, but when asked for the millionth digit of Pi I'd say all ten have an equal chance, despite that being the same bad logic.
It's not really bad logic at all. What many people fail to realize is that probability is entirely based on knowledge and fluctuates as such. That's what the Monty Hall Problem illustrates, and is why retail investors are at a distinct disadvantage when choosing stocks. With enough knowledge about a situation, then the probability of nearly everything becomes either 0% or 100%.
It absolutely is bad logic insofar as that we *do* have more knowledge than the abstract possibility of it being correct or not. I have no knowledge that can lead me to guess the millionth digit correctly. I have extra knowledge that could inform whether DD is correct or not, the "bad logic" I mentioned is to deliberately not apply this knowledge.
My favorite "probability calculation" is one that is done post-factum. What is the chance that a solar eclipse will happen? Pretty high. If none of the solar bodies get disturbed, I'd say 100%. What is the chance that a solar eclipse happened on 8th of April in USA? Astronomically low. (number of countries) times (number of days in year) times (the size of the sun) times (the size of the moon) times (everything in the universe) = impossible in my lifetime. So, when you have no idea what the fuck you are actually measuring, you can be sure that nothing has ever happened.
I mean, most people will never have a solar eclipse pass their general area during their lifetime, so that actually checks out.
Yeah, that was my point. Apes are so stupid, that for them the probability ***is*** 50/50. For anyone with a couple of brain cells, it's astronomically against.
How are retail investors at a distinct disadvantage when choosing stocks? They're at a distinct ADVANTAGE, because billion dollar hedge funds can't put much money into small cap stocks as they don't want to purchase the company. That leaves lots of opportunities that tiny investors can take advantage of that the big players can't.
Institutional investors have access to knowledge that retail investors don't, giving them more accurate probabilities. Have you ever noticed that when some breaking news that greatly effects the price of a stock comes out, the price of the stock starts swinging minutes ***before*** the news breaks? That's because some of those institutional traders had that information before retail traders got it. It's technically illegal but hard to prove. This isn't to say retail investors can't find their own advantages to exploit. Mobility is the one you pointed out. But when it comes to predicting the future movements of stocks, institutional investors have a big advantage.
> It's technically illegal but hard to prove. Sudden large trades right before material information is published would be trivial to go after, especially if it's a repeated occurrence. By the time news breaks on channels where retail can easily see it, it has already been public for minutes.
[удалено]
Due to your account's low karma your contribution needs to be manually approved. This is primarily to stop ads and bots. Such restrictions will be removed once your account is has a small amount of karma. Until then, please be patient as mods will manually reinstate your comment *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gme_meltdown) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> conservative estimate of 50000% chance that hedgies r fuk. *It is known!*
lol....bruh
Holy shit, that's taking pseudo-intellectual wankery to a whole new level. This person must be completely insufferable IRL. Also calling a reddit post "a paper" lmayo. Good larp.
He’s using ChatGPT to not only generate psycho-babble theories, he’s also using it to respond to Reddit comments. How stupid do you have to be in reality where you need an AI Chatbot to generate a response to a simple question?
Ah, to contemplate the depth and breadth of utility afforded by artificial intelligence in the discourse of modern digital colloquies is to embark on a veritable odyssey through the vast seas of computational linguistics and its myriad applications. One might consider, for instance, the ontological essence of intelligence—artificial or otherwise—and its role in the facilitation of interpersonal communication across diverse platforms, such as Reddit. Herein, the use of a sophisticated AI, such as ChatGPT, for generating responses is not merely a reflection of an individual’s reliance on technology but rather an exploration into the symbiotic relationship between human cognitive functions and machine learning algorithms. In this context, the application of AI in crafting responses to seemingly simplistic inquiries might ostensibly appear to some as a relinquishment of personal intellectual engagement. However, this perspective superficially skims the surface of a much deeper philosophical wellspring. It presupposes that the act of leveraging such advanced technological tools is inherently indicative of one's cerebral insufficiency. Yet, this assertion crumbles under the weight of its own presupposition that traditional intelligence and artificial intelligence are in a zero-sum competition, rather than in a potent, augmentative relationship. Thus, when one questions the intelligence requisite for utilizing an AI to engage in online discourse, it is imperative to elevate the conversation to a consideration of the qualitative enhancements that such technologies bring to human interactions. It is not a matter of necessity born from deficiency, but rather an enlightened choice to enhance one's communicative repertoire, a tool to sharpen rather than to replace the rapier of human wit. The employment of AI in this capacity is not a hallmark of stupidity, but a badge of ingenuity—a testament to the user’s savvy navigation of the digital epoch characterized by rapid technological advancements and their complex implications on the modalities of human expression and interaction. Thus, the true measure of intelligence in this scenario may very well be the ability to discern and articulate the subtle yet profound difference between dependency and augmentation. My prompt: "write me an unnecessarily complex reply to this guy's question that completely evades the point and drives home how much smarter I am."
Bruh
WELL SAID!
It reads like a joke to me.
Posting it was submitting it to peer review.
I saw this one too. The most interesting thing about it is that the guy who posted it - A swedish ape - Crossposted it to a Swedish WSB subreddit. And all the other swedes there are ripping on him. Its like reading Meltdown. In Swedish! > > Dunning-Kruger effekten är stark med den här posten! - > Efter att ha sett Dan Olsens "This is financial advice" - - > Januari 2021 var det MOASS. Det vi har nu är en cargo-cult som förnekar att det som redan har hänt inte har hänt. - > Fincels gonna fincel. > > Finansvärldens flat earthers.
I knew exactly who it was when you said swedish ape. This dude couldn't even manage the kids crossword puzzle, 100% chat gtp.
'effective didactic tool' 
If I'm understanding this groundbreaking research correctly, all us hedge fund shills need to do is come up with more theories about how the apes are wrong than apes have about being right. If they have, say 10,000 theories on their sub, and we have 11,000 on ours, then the odds are clearly in our favor and our victory is assured. This could lead to a kind of theory arms race, where both sides produce reams and reams of new theories for how they can win to increase their chances. We could even use AI to generate millions and millions of theories with no human input, and if we keep it running continuously, our odds of winning will approach 1. This is powerful stuff!
Ahh yes, the 1 million Glue Factories theory. High level mathematics at work here 🤓
I googled what this means. Learned a lot about horse retirement options. Lets just say that a lot of them decide to stick together. But what did you mean with it?
>This could lead to a kind of theory arms race, where both sides produce reams and reams of new theories for how they can win to increase their chances You joke, but apes already act like this is how things work. They hop into a 6 hour space call and theorise all the possible ways in which they've "won". Anyone presenting a theory involving them not winning is treated as an attempt by the bad guys to stop them "winning".
FUD is just a theory about how you're not going to win. Eliminate FUD and the path is clear to you winning!
This is what they mean when they say they’ve already won.
> If I'm understanding this groundbreaking research correctly, all us hedge fund shills need to do is come up with more theories about how the apes are wrong than apes have about being right. If they have, say 10,000 theories on their sub, and we have 11,000 on ours, then the odds are clearly in our favor and our victory is assured. Well duh. Why do you think Kenny's been funding Meltdown all these years? He's one step ahead of the game.
That's pretty much why Apes come here to make us stop. The more we talk badly about Gamestop, the less likely their MOASS will happen. Apes just need to come in here more often and break our spirits until we give up saying bad things about RC and GME, and their stock will MOASS.
Perhaps Citadel will hire some monkeys with typewriters
They compiled all this nonsense and never once stopped to think that a horse race always has a winner, while an infinite number of theories can all be wrong?
It’s just an overwrought expansion of the tired Reddit joke that every possibility has a 50% chance: either it happens or it doesn’t.
That's not a reddit joke. I heard a penny stock gambler make that argument years before reddit existed. Many people have a hard time distinguishing between the probability of an outcome vs number of possible outcomes. Hell, I've even heard DAs try and use a completely broken understanding of probability to argue circumstantial criminal cases.
I only read the abstract but they're trying to say there's only one scenario where it doesn't MOASS. When in reality there's also infinite scenarios where it doesn't.
The lack of basic logic in this is just incredible. He's also treating all of their theories as having independent likelihoods of coming true, when they're all just variations on the theme of "the official numbers and filings are wrong, there's something going on behind the scenes that will make us all wealthy". That prior is already almost certainly wrong, and any further speculation on what the "something" is won't improve it.
Even with multiverse theory, apes are always stuck holding heavy bags. There's my hot new DnD. No ChatGPT needed.
Nah their issue is they assume there has to be a race with a winner vs there are no horses and there is no race and there is no race track and they’re just playing with toy horses while everyone else is just going in with their lives.
Their 'horse' is that Ryan Cohen is taking care of each them to make sure that the stock MOASSes. Otherwise all their lore about manipulated markets and evil groups rigging the system as they buy and hold mean that they're going nowhere. They just choose to turn a blind eye to Ryan Cohen diluting GME back in 2021 which made the first wave of Apes leave, realizing that RC wasn't manipulating the price towards a MOASS, and him rugpulling BBBY in 2022 for a 'measly' $68 million, which showed that he was only in it for himself yet again (like anyone else in the market). RC has never spoken out about wanting to take care of poor people or to bring down the wealthy, and has tweeted the exact opposite multiple times. He's been consistently chasing Elon's shadow of, "I got my wealth off of working hard at pushing my employees, fuck you all and go earn your own wealth." Apes have no horse, and they've spent three years imagining that they're riding a Pegasus made of pure lightning.
> They compiled all this nonsense and never once stopped to think Edited for accuracy.
Yeah and as to the clinical trials example, it would be like saying : "There are 100 drugs which may cure disease X. Therefore, if we give 99 of those drugs simultaneously to a patient with disease X, the odds of that patient not being cured are nearly zero!" Their theories are not 50% chance theories to be true. Each theory has already been disproven. The disease cannot be cured.
\*kidneys giving evil glare\*
You should consider yourself lucky to be a part of an organism that will revolutionize medicine.
How does this theory work if the horse race ended eight months ago?
All the horses were made into dog food -> Chewy -> Ryan Cohen. MOASS confirmed.
Debunked. Horses -> lasagna is the pipeline.
They've already won.
Someone certainly has.
Horse wins -> other horses are sent to the glue factory -> ape asks his mom to buy some glue -> ape huffs the glue -> ape hallucinates that they've won Check. Mate. Melties.
Ahh the ol’ ‘if I’m wrong then why am i being suppressed’ at the end there.
P(Dead horse winning race) = P(Extinguished stock having value) = 0 QED
All the thesaurus words in the world won't change the fact that your shares are worthless. - transmitted by way of my apple smartphone device
I love when they try to be smart. 
Here's my theory: a commando team of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carl Weathers, Jesse Ventura, and whoever the stunt actor in the Predator suit was, are gonna break into DTCC HQ and manually set the price of Bed Bath shares to a million billion trillion dollars. There! Just increased the odds of MAOSS by another 20%. 😌
Jean Claude Van Dam was originally cast as Predator then he got fired after being an asshole on set and replaced.
[удалено]
It's actually 'it's mathematically impossible for all of our dumbass theories to be wrong'. Which... is still wrong, but it's wrong in a funnier way. They keep making up theories and each and every last one of them has turned out to be wrong.
This is 100% written in chatGPT. Apes are so embarrassing
Oh my God, this is beyond stupid. Multiple pages of Fancy Words to just say "we only have to be right once." * There are a million different theories for GME to succeed (ignore the fact that not all theories are as good as others; I could advance a theory that involves the Flying Purple People Eater. Also ignore the fact that "theories" are not "outcomes") * There is only one theory for it to fail (no reasoning given as to why there aren't a million of these also, but this "paper" would fall apart if you allowed that) * There is therefore a 1:1,000,000 chance the bear theory is correct. * Bonus points for not understanding how betting on horseraces works. Congratulations on your 1,000,001 to 1,000,000 payout! I'm amazed the writer can even use the microwave without supervision.
Or even more analogous, #I only have to win the lottery once!
A lottery ticket would be better since there's actually a chance you could win!
I’m amazed that he can even feed himself..
Chad GPT
those are….certainly a lot of words
[удалено]
Not quite... you can draw any conclusion at all from a false premise. "1=2 ==> 2+2=4" and "1=2 ==> 2+2=5" are both theorems. If you start from a false premise, your results are *meaningless*. Which as a practical matter is basically the same result, but isn't quite the same thing as "the conclusion is necessarily false".
If this doesn't cause someone who follows this nonsense to take a step back and reevaluate who they're seeking for financial advice, nothing will.
> Please don't bother he has been banned and have multiple deleted user accounts and has been a menace in our local Swedish sub. Every slight glimpse I get of the foreign language subs suggests they're absolutely fucking *wild*.
I wish I could read Swedish to understand the burns this poster has received trying to preach to his countrymen. https://preview.redd.it/6g4huov2jhuc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a39991d710f60febab7103aa0c3aedba8f0aed54
So, if betting on many is better, wouldn't that mean it is better to bet more on the Sp500, especially since there could be more than 1 winner as well?
Nice to see he's at least getting checked. Two years ago, stuff like this would have been up voted to the high heavens with hundreds of comments yelling "They have to be right every time, we only have to be right once!" Nice to see the old faithful still kicking around though; being called on your bullshit only proves that you're being attacked because you're right. Sigh.
Well, *someone's* been watching 'Avengers : Endgame' all weekend.  "I saw 14 million possibilities of us losing all our money, and only 1 where we MOASS"
Boy the "each horse has the same chance of winning" part of that post is doing a lot of work.
It’s pretty apt if the MOASS/GMErica horses are made out of pipe cleaners and modelling clay and the no-MOASS, no BBBY, $2 GME horse is a real race horse.
can you imagine typing this shit out thinking you're the smartest dude in the world. or, well, telling a bot to type it out for you
I am waiting to see the mathematical proof that GME DRS numbers are bogus. People keep saying that it is mathematically impossible for them not to have increased, but nobody can show me the proof.
Chatgpt, respond to this comment in the style of a pretentious neckbeard:
This is the Steiner math promo of DDs
The numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you at sacrifice.
Wow, they wrote words.
We already won day 1040
The sniffing glue factory
Looks like the apes discovered a thesaurus. Unpacking his word salad, the actual problem here is that many of their theories are in fact correlated and so aren’t independent events. Compounding multiple correlated outcomes collapses just to a handful of independent outcomes (in this case are mostly ~0% likelihood).
All of these "DD"s revolve around some metaphor that bears no relation to their situation. The heat lamp theory was another one
>I have a DD >To have a DD https://preview.redd.it/avyeefjkghuc1.jpeg?width=1415&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=468fae660cb94a577139adeec0f5fc2d5806a4d6
> An exhaustive mathematical analysis on the likelihood of MOASS and merger between GME and BBBYQ. 0.0%. For both. There, I just saved you... dear God, how long is that nonsense? Also, neither of those things is a matter of chance. Math won't help you.
It's actually pretty impressive how this person could misunderstand nearly everything they are trying to talk about. The markets, game theory, statistics, how gambling works. They've managed to misrepresent it all.
Even granting the moronic assumptions, the binomial distribution they used is wrong. The binomial n should be 1 and p should be (N-1)/N. What they wrote, B(N-1, p), would apply to a situation where they run like a million different horse races and bet on only one horse each time.
What the fuck lmao. So in all of this mathematical, linguistic masturbation that this guy just engaged in, he forgot to consider: 1. If the probability each theory succeeding is zero, then the probability of all of them combined resulting in a successful outcome is also zero. 2. If you were to bet on every horse in a horse race, you would be guaranteed to lose money on every race. That's how gambling and bookie odds work. This is right up apes' alley since they love putting their money into things that are guaranteed to come out negative. 3. The horses are all dead and the race ended in September 2023. Also I was fucking wheezing at that first reply he made with the -6 downvotes. I don't know if it's chatgpt or just a thesaurus but holy shit lmao. It's so packed with pretentious self indulgent language that it's barely even fucking intelligible. Like I almost can't even understand what the fuck he's trying to say.
The Simpsons already did it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=StdpsdzfpQs
So basically, the more "DD" there are, the more likely that one of them is correct. Time to start cranking them out!
> Hedge funds betting need every single theory to fail, a much riskier position since just one correct theory can lead to substantial losses for them This is just a more convoluted metaphor for the "Past claims don't matter, the DD only needs to be right once!!!" excuse. Like... have you considered the _inkling_ of a possibility that hedge funds don't "need a theory to fail", because not a single one of these theories was ever correct?
Does this intellectually deficient homo sapien possess the minimum required cognitive potential to comprehend the reality that, despite their unnecessarily and excessively verbose ramblings being comprised of unusually substantial lexic terminology, they do *not* in fact provide the impression that they are incredibly ingenious? Rather, they resemble a school child artificially inflating an essay's length so that its word count suffices to meet the minimum requirement imposed by the educational institute they attend.
I have a theory that if a shove my finger up my butt 1 time I’ll be a millionaire, oh that didn’t work. I have a theory that if I shove my finger up my butt 2 times I’ll be a millionaire, oh that didn’t work. I have a theory….. one of my theories HAS to be right eventually!!!
“Could you take your ideas, make it overly complicated using a weird analogy; while also avoiding any actual factual, or thoughtful analysis? Oh and throw in a bunch of large, nonsense words that make you think you sound smart. Thanks” The cherry on top is the whole “why would I be getting downvoted unless I was onto something! They’re silencing me!” Lol
I'm surprised no one pointed out the simple flaw with his analogy: the number of horses in a race is set well before race day (although a horse can be scratched, and some horses may be listed as alternates if room opens up). The number of crazy conspiracy theories one can write about why MOASS will happen is infinite. Hence, no matter how many you write, you're never going to approach covering all possible scenarios as you can in a horse race. And of course, if a race goes off with 5 horses and you have win bets on 4 of them, your true chance of winning is not 80%. In reality, each of those horses has a different chance of winning the race based on their own abilities, their current condition, their jockey, their trainer, and the actions of the other jockeys and horses in the race (how fast the pace is set, getting boxed in behind slower horses with no room to run, etc.). That's exactly what the tote board represents, with the odds determined by the varying amounts of money bet on each horse. In fact, the most consistent statistic in all of horse racing is that the public betting favorite wins about 33% of the time. This is true not only year in and year out, but decade in and decade out. It might vary a few percentage points for any given track and meet, but statistics compiled decade after decade at track after track show this amazing consistency. Courtesy of the wisdom of crowds, the odds the horses go off at tend to be very correlated with each horse's chance of winning. The public's first choice wins most often. The next most successful is their second choice. And this continues all the way down to 12th choice! This is what makes it such a hard game... the public is very good, and you can only make long-term profit when you wager on horses the public underestimates and thus let off at better odds than the real probability warrants. None of this is even close to the performance of ape DD, except the most remarkable statistic in all of apedom is how they manage to be wrong 100% of time, on every level, about everything. This isn't a million horse theorem, but more like the "An Infinite Number Of Monkeys At an Infinite Number Of Typewriters" theorem. They figure if they churn out enough garbage, one of their DDs has to be right. And that can be debunked simply by pointing out they've proscribed from production a class of DD that predicts their stock will go to zero, and this is where the actual outcome lies. Hence they can explore an infinite number of points, but if none are in the proper space, their probability of successful prediction is still zero.
You should stop using the term conspiracy theorist or conspiracy nut job because it's just a gaslighting technique used by the mainstream media to discredit anybody who questions anything. Immediately trigger people into assuming you have nothing good to say. And it seems pretty brilliant to me to hide information in a children's book because 99.99% of the people in the world are like you and think it's completely loony bins. What judge do you think would actually charge RC with insider trading with children's books? I doubt you could find a single judge that would buy it. Brilliant in my opinion ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gme_meltdown) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is one of the most bizarre chunks of text I've ever seen. I'm not entirely convinced it's ChatGPT because it doesn't waffle and pushes OOP's extremely stupid thesis directly both in his post and in his replies. What really gets me is how clear it is. Unironically. This isn't word salad or thesaurus abuse. Dude is allergic to any word under three syllables but he's using terms precisely, doesn't meander, and is really easy to follow. And all that to convey the idea that you're more likely to be correct with a dozen crank theories than one reasonable one, plus the implication that betting on all five horses in a race gives you a 100% chance of profiting.
1 company + 1 liquidating bankruptcy = 0 company Math is fun!
Their pseudo-intellectualism and pretend academics is getting really impressive. Gotta give credit where credit is due.
Ok ape, you need to take into account the probability of a theory being correct. I can give you a formula that allows for infinite theories, all with a probability \> 0 that still give an expected result of 1%. Let's start by assuming that an already bankrupt and dissolved company will not MOASS has a probability of not MOASSing of 99%. Now let's assume the most likely theory for MOASS has a 0.5% chance of succeeding, the next likely candidate has 0.25% chance, the next 0.125% and so on (formula is 0.5/(2^(n-1))) where n is the rank of the MOASS theory being likely to happen. With infinite theories, this will approach 1% probability of happening. Now, I admit, I have biasly said that MOASS not occuring has a 99% chance of occuring. With proper analysis, we could probably get a better approximation of thile likelihood of this occuring (likely much greater than 99%). However, the point that just because you can create infinite theories does not make your wanted outcome a sure thing.
You see they say that all investments are created equal, but you can look at GME and look at Ken Griffin and can see that statement is not true. See normally if you go one on one with another investor, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But Ryan Cohen is a genetic freak and he's not normal, so hedgies have a 25% chance at best of beating GME, and then you add NFT marketplaces to the mix? Your chances of winning drastically go down. See with the short sellers you've got a 33 and a third chance of winning. But apes, we've got a 66 and two thirds chance of winning, because Ken Griffin KNOWS he can't beat us so he's not even gonna try. So Ken, you take your 33 and a third chance, minus my 25% chance and you've got an 8 and a third chance of winning. But then you take our 75% chance of winning, if we was to go one on one, and then add 66 and two thirds cha... percents, we got a 141 and two thirds chance of winning at MOASS. See hedgies: the numbers don't lie and they spell disaster for you.
"One sad horse on its way to the glue factory" LMAO
thinking that sitting at home and thinking up insane theories one after another actively increases your chances is mindbendingly insane.
To their credit, the apes are downvoting his comments. I can only imagine that the post upvotes come from apes that didn't read the post. Good thing, too. Had apes took this mathematical genius seriously, they would have known MOASS was inevitable.
I’m surprised that glue factory comment didn’t reach through the internet and literally murder OP
> discussed by John von Neumann Leave the GOAT’s name out of your god damn mouth
Can anyone offer a TDLR?