Lurker > Lopen

Algus

Trade for Loki auto can save now

GuessMyUserName posted...

trading h3 for Mantis

Mantis

Get Loki

Trading for Loki auto save at :04 (will actually be here reliably for 10-15 minutes this time)

Loki

red sox 777 posted...

If the funds in BBIG are mostly long, then if they get margin called they would sell BBIG causing it to drop.

Not necessarily. Proportions are important. If one big long + short fund gets margin called and has a large short position in bbig (most of the long only have small positions) it would be net positive overall.

red sox 777 posted...

If it's net-long funds that are getting margin called, wouldn't that mean they'll be liquidating long positions and triggering a crash?

Yes. That's why BTC is crashing.

red sox 777 posted...

That makes more sense. But there are 70 long only funds that are short BBIG? That would make them not long-only....

No the 70 funds are legit long on BBIG. 20 are long + shorts that include some longs on BBIG and some short on BBIG. There was one or two pure short funds that were in there but I think it got closed a few months back.

Keep in mind this isn't about BBIG really.

This is about the market in general. I think we're seeing a lot of short covering soon, across the market. BBIG will squeeze on Tyde distribution it has nothing to do with that-- I'm talking about the market at large is probably going to rubberband hard.

red sox 777 posted...

If you mean net long hedge funds are at risk of margin calls, sure. But with the bear market we're in, net short hedge funds are unlikely to be anywhere near a margin call. So is your theory that funds that are net long the market are short BBIG?

Yes, and I assume that's the case with most hedge funds and short positions actually.

There is only one fund that is short only on BBIG last I looked. There are like 70 long only and like 20 long + short.

red sox 777 posted...

Your account must have other assets in it to have been allowed to short 100 AMC in the first place. If there are no other assets in your account then the -100 AMC and 10 AAPL your account would have a net value of 0. Which means you would have already been in a margin call prior to this.

Yes

And those other assets must be closed, or apple must be closed, to actually reduce margin use. That was my whole point. You don't just get to close AMC and reduce your use of margin. It's a net zero because going short AMC is paired with going long something else, generally. If you ONLY had the AMC short to account for, then yes, you can close it at will but yeah, this isn't how the game is being played.

red sox 777 posted...

You're acting like all of these funds are already at liquidity levels that would trigger margin calls, all the time

But keep in mind the liquified BTC is basically providing the liquidity to avoid margin calls here. Which is all I was saying. No they're not perpetually at risk of a margin call-- but no they're not being conservative with their margin either. Hedge funds go bankrupt in bear markets for a reason.

red sox 777 posted...

Less, not more.

I didn't say more. I said the same amount as you liquify longs to be able to liquify shorts if you need your margin use to come down. You don't just get to liquify shorts for nothing.

Listen, man, just look at my example, say my account is such that it allows me to use exactly enough to short 100 shares of AMC. By entering a short on AMC at that point, I am fronted from the broker money I can use for other assets. For sake of this example let's just say that the apple is exactly 10x AMC

So my position is

-100 AMC (this is increasing my margin use)
10 Apple (this is not, it's how my -100 AMC is being allocated)

So now how do I close AMC if I want to stop shorting it if I don't want to close Apple or any of my other long securities and my margin is maxed out? I have to put money in, ie proceeds from selling BTC. I'm not saying they're at risk of margin call but they are overleveraged to the point where they can't just close the positions at will.

Like the broker needs you to have $XXX of long assets in your account as collateral. That can be cash, or other securities, or whatever else.

If you want to cover a short without liquidating a long position to do so and you're fully tapped on margin, you have to deposit some cash ie BTC.

Yes

I'm saying your broker liquidates the short position by covering but they don't just do it for free like you're implying unless you're just sitting on your money received from the broker as your proceeds from the short

If you're using your borrowed money from the short sale to buy another long asset, how then do you satisfy the margin call when you receive it? The broker forces you to liquidate something else or deposit money.

Like I don't think you're really getting it. Yes it reduces margin use, but generally the money in margin set aside to cover a short sale is being used in something else. So this whole "well you have the money set aside for this purpose" isn't really true. I mean it is in the sense that the broker needs it as collateral, but it isn't in the sense that you can just close short positions at will unless you're using no margin at all on long positions.

Like I guess if your argument is short sellers are just short selling stock and sitting on the funds they get from the short sale so they can cover later sure, but I guarantee you that isn't what's actually happening. Everyone's super leveraged into everything and to unwind it they need to have starting liquidity from something. Hence why BTC tanks first since that's basically what it's supposed to be anyway digitalized cash, why not tap into it first.

Like think what happens when you open a short position

You receive the value of the stock in cash (or + margin if you want to look it that way) as though you'd sold the stock
You owe the lender the stock now.

So now you're saying you can buy the stock back without paying cash (or -margin)? Think about the implications of that.

Like if I sell 10 shares of AMC short, and then use the proceeds to gain 1 share of Apple, how then do I cover the AMC shares? Logically by selling the apple if neither's price has moved, there wouldn't be a problem. But you're saying I can just do it for free and now I just have a share of apple and the same amount of margin use I had before I shorted AMC? Obviously not.

No that's not correct. Covering is margin neutral and requires starting liquidity to do so.

Yes it reduces your margin use once you cover (which offsets the price of buying the asset, hence neutral) but actually closing a long position can't be done by tapping into more margin that isn't logical if you actually think about it. You have to start the ball rolling by selling a long asset.

I said they're scrambling for liquidity, not scared. To cover a short position you need to buy it. This is a good time to cover short positions.

The problem is everything is down so they don't want to sell their long assets, so they have to pull it from somewhere ie Crypto. Crypto tends to tank a bit before short stocks squeeze, historically. Check GME and AMC run prices and compare to the price of BTC.

Also a lot of the market going down has been a result of short selling, not long selling, so while they're up the actual amount they're up isn't as much as you'd think, and the funds that get out last get punished hard if the market actually recovers.

Also crypto falling off the face of the earth tells me hedges are scrambling for liquidity to cover soon.

Yeah. I think .75 makes market moon (buy the (bad) news (which is actually good in a way)) and .50 makes market tank personally, on that same logic. We'll see what happens.

BBIG showing 70-80 Dark Pool and 300 CTB last two days

Weird to still feel confident in my 2.5c that expire Friday but I do. Think the fed meeting is going to cause it to pop no matter how the markets react (if they go down, margin calls = shorts must cover. If they go up, BBIG goes up, shorts must cover due to absurd CTB).

Throw on that Tyde S1 should happen by end of week and we've got quite a storm brewing. Might get some more (further out) calls while we're down here.

Fiop posted...

If it were the series going against each other, I'd go with FF, but I like Kirby's Adventure much more than the original FF.

Kinda the reverse for me

Like if it were Kirby Series vs FF Series I wouldn't say I'd outright vote Kirby but it would be much closer to me than this match is. Not the biggest fan of Kirby's Adventure-- I guess for its time it was good but now I'm spoiled by the later entries with more robust powers.

Looks like Kirby is stomping though

Final Fantasy

Shiva

Yeah. Been meaning to watch Hawkeye. Haven't been saving it to finish Black Widow or anything (started watching it, could not get through) but yeah I'll watch em both eventually.

Probably not before the contest finishes though!

Algus

Barely know Makkari or Yelena as I haven't seen their source material yet.

Others all good though.

Loki

I'd be more interested in knowing previous allegations since it has been a known thing "throughout the years"

Dragonair posted...

I feel it's pretty common knowledge at this point that Depp has assaulted several people throughout the years.

It's so common that this is the first I've heard of it.

He wasn't talking about the cop in a specific sense, rather using the cop's position to make a general statement on how credible it makes the claim.

The analogy is Amber Heard saying I didn't like Phoenix Wright and Biscuit said "I doubt Heard's story even more here because Lopen is from Board 8 and most of them love Phoenix Wright"

so if i said "lopen likes ___", you would interpret that as "lopen probably likes ___"? seriously?

No. But the difference is I'm a specific person and not a group.

However if you said "Board 8 posters like ___" (let's say I don't know, Phoenix Wright) I wouldn't automatically assume you were saying with 100% certainty that I like Phoenix Wright despite being a Board 8 poster. I would assume you were saying it was more likely than not I like Phoenix Wright however.

Biscuit was clearly saying the former and Kenri was clearly saying the latter. That's all that was clear. Biscuit literally said he wasn't saying anything with 100% certainty multiple times in this topic but your Vulcan brain can't process that someone doesn't necessarily not mean probably if they don't explicitly say it and would rather make cheese analogies.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

it kinda is if he confidently states that i'm not bigoted against dutch people because i'm dutch. again, i have no problem with the statement that i'm probably not bigoted against dutch people.

Let's ignore talking in absolutes because I don't think anyone in here is actually doing that.

You can agree that "the cop is a lesbian so probably isn't a bigot" is a more reasonable assumption to make than "the lesbian is a cop so probably is a bigot" is it not?

World is "fine" but I wouldn't put it far ahead of Jurassic Park 3

Park >> World > Park 3 >> World 2 > Park 2

Mega Man 3

Mr Lasastryke posted...

"i don't know what's true" and "one option is more likely than the other" aren't mutually exclusive statements.

The way he phrased it didn't seem to imply one was (a lot) more likely than the other. The way he phrased it seemed like "well a cop said it so now it's up in the air even though Heard is a known liar"

Like you're saying it's 85% option A he's saying 50% option A. Very different.

Sorry. Would have taken trade

Trading for Loki auto

Algus

Well I guess maybe the lesson to learn is if you think it's imbalanced maybe the setup isn't what you think it is

On paper I'm down 40k this year btw.

I still think I win in the long run but it does hurt.

Loki

There's also the fact that Kirby played gladiator in a really unscum kinda way.

But yeah 6 mafia team with hated townie and scum gladiator/watcher on top of the 5 flips you saw seems really imbalanced to me and I think if you're really reading into setups 2 godfathers, scum gladiator, and town vengeful none really make sense but yeah (keep in mind as an observer I thought Kirby was scum for a while. Once many scum flipped though Kirbys role didn't really make sense to fit in the scumteam imo, talking balance). Definitely think Dark Side Chris bussing 4 scum isn't completely out of the question, particularly since doc was killed days ago. Anyway, yeah, I just think it was something to learn from. Once you're that deep in the game setup meta can mean a lot.

Bulletproof existing doesn't clear Chris from being in the mafia imo. A random meaningless scum bulletproof is a more plausible role trap than double godfather I think.

Also scum gladiator gave scum two extra kills and watch jacks their power up pretty high for a 6 man team. Seems unlikely.

Now I suppose my ability to see Chris exploiting shooting scum bulletproof early to hide the presence of SK might be easier because I did the same the one game I won as SK in FFVII mafia but yeah with scum talking of a SK and scum bulletproof existing in the setup you definitely have to give it some weight. I can't be wholly unbiased because Han spoiled for me there was an SK but if scum mentioned it and the alternative is a 6 man scumteam with full power loadout and 2 extra kills I doubt I'm ruling it out.

I feel like GS has some risk priced in because of the rocky state of the economy

Obviously it shouldn't be a 5 p/e and wouldnt be if we weren't trying to force a market crash but it does carry some risks.

Oh OK.

Well either way Lea's role should have been enough to know vengeful was a weird one to exist and scarcely resolves anything better than no town shots imo. But yeah Im not saying Chris didn't play well but I do think he was the least town cleared in that last day by a fair margin.

The key was not to know Chris was scum but to townclear each other I think

Kirby's role didn't fit on scumteam given the flips and ctes was inno scanned when godfather flipped and two godfathers is just not common

Chris on the other hand didn't really have any town clears besides playing well which I mean he can easily do that as scum. I agree that believing SK exists is a bit of a stretch given no extra kills (less so when scumteam tells you it exists and one flips bulletproof) but yeah.

Also didn't red claim roleblocked repeatedly and it not get resolved ever. Obviously he was lying but there could have been scum roleblocker left if he was telling the truth.

But yeah Im not saying Chris didn't play well but I do think he clearly looked the worst of the final 3 (just based on stuff he couldn't control) but in the end it wasn't an embarrassing defeat or anything. Just something to learn from.

Isquen posted...

Recent media be damned, even if it's what threw shade Kirby's way afterwards.

There was a lot of Mandalorian stuff in the flavor. I actually expected Boba to be town.

Castlevania 3