reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @anon58007979614

@anon58007979614 - anon

You clowns both peddle and consume actual lies. Retardation is not speculation especially when framed as due diligence designed to influence people into spending their money on bullshit and then asking for donations. PP is a junkie fraud and all of his “viewers” are unwitting financial cucks being manipulated while mentally vulnerable as a result of following his idiocy and losing large sums of money. At some point you clowns forgot the markets are for investments, they aren’t a video game. There is no place for degenerate entertainment, especially when it comes at cost of people who don’t know betters livelihoods. You can cry and have a stomping tantrum about it all you want, but facts are facts and fraud is fraud. Your beloved “show” is a cancer and your cults existence is a black mark on all retail investors. In case you didn’t notice outside of your cult literally everyone is laughing at and mocking you clowns because you know so little about what you’re doing that it’s almost surreal that you guys exist at all. But that’s the beauty of markets, even idiots are allowed to give up their money to them. Anyone would love you as the counterparty to their trades because you guys are guaranteed to lose. Now fuck off with your complaining because i’m sick to death of seeing you dipshits continue to believe in a fantasy investment which literally all evidence points to being gone. You lost. Fucking live with it.

@anon58007979614 - anon

This means in a sense only a small fraction of the available liquidity is ever in ‘play’ at any given point (where the bid-ask meet), while generally there is substantial resting liquidity at higher and lower prices levels. This provides us an understanding of how price should move according to zones of liquidity — the spot price of an asset is liquidity-seeking (it will move towards liquidity). Market orders are liquidity consumers. Limit orders (bids and asks) can, but not always are, liquidity suppliers. A high amount of resting orders (orders away from the current bid-ask spread) tends to create a deeper market. Order flow practitioners tend to use information about the liquidity suppliers (limit orders) to construct key levels in both directions for price movement, which tends to give a trading edge. More interestingly for us is the interplay between price formation and liquidity. Price, as mentioned prior, is a liquidity seeking phenomenon. As the distribution of resting orders moves intraday we expect the price of an asset to move with it. What happens, however, when liquidity thins out? Liquidity dries up usually when one side (whether buying or selling) becomes significantly imbalanced and one-sided. This can happen, for example, when price moves up fairly rapidly above (or to the outer edges of) resting limit order, where buying pressure tapers off substantially. In this case as the flow becomes more and more imbalanced, one of two effects seems to usually occur: •A reversal in price momentum — This is the most common outcome, and usually follows directly from price’s tendency to seek liquidity. As it becomes overstretched beyond existing zones of liquidity, it tends to bounce off and seek existing liquidity downwards/upwards. •A sharp break in the direction of price momentum — a ‘liquidity black hole’ — and often occurs in crash or correction type events. One-sided order flow can lead to short squeezes (no selling) or rapid selloffs (March 10 stop loss raid).

@anon58007979614 - anon

The Model Imagine for simplicity a universe where all the following conditions hold true on an asset: •There exists an asset X with spot price S which over time evolves according to a random walk-like process (infinite series of coin flips). •There is finite liquidity. •For this asset, there exists a derivatives market consisting of sellers, who for the purpose of this argument are hedged. •There exists no other asset or derivative to hedge contracts. This roughly approximates the same assumptions used for common option pricing models such as Black-Scholes. For the purpose of this example, let’s define market depth as the ability to move the spot price of X by $1. A random walk in the simplest form can be modeled as an infinite series of coin flips. We can divide infinite time into infinitesimal slices of size epsilon. Given we start at some time t, we can represent the next time period as t+epsilon. For a true random walk, only the current state matters for telling us the next state (this is called memorylessness) — no matter what I did in the previous state, my probability of going up or down is still the same for each state. This model tends to work for stock prices, especially on fairly short time ranges. Because of the churn and lack of coordination of market buyers and sellers, stock prices tend to fluctuate up and down with fairly equal probability over any given, small enough time range. The idea of a random walk underpins most (if not all) option pricing models. Hedging is integral to the derivation of a rational price for an options contract — the price of an options contract is, in Black-Scholesland, equivalent to the cost of dynamically hedging a position in the underlying equivalent to the delta of the options contract continuously. This isn’t possible in real life though. What’s interesting about the existence of hedging and therefore the options market is that unlike the assumptions made in our random walk (e.g. the memorylessness) there must exist an implicit memory-like state in our toy model because the buying and selling of derivatives due to delta hedging at previous times substantially impacts the movement of the underlying (as well as makes it non-linear except in the simplest examples, due to gamma hedging). To put it even more simply, the net delta represented by the open derivatives on X represents an additive force to random changes in the underlying spot price, given open call delta we can anticipate even in a random walk scenario that the spot should move in a path dependent manner given derivative positions previously opened on the asset. Finally, we can see the importance of market depth here. Delta hedging and re-hedging of existing options positions has the potential to exhaust the available market depth given normal price evolution (per X’s random process). This is where the Toy Model example ends, however, and we have to consider how assets move in real life. The Order Book In real life, we have the order book, which is a fairly comprehensive map of liquidity for a given stock at a certain time — it lists all open buy and sell orders organized by price level. On the public markets, it provides us an intuitive understanding of when and why price moves on the daily — when asks, for instance, are exhausted (depth-wise) at a price level, the price will move up, while if bids are exhausted the price should move down. The area where the bids and asks meet is the bid-ask spread, which is roughly where the asset’s spot price is quoted at. (1/n)…

@anon58007979614 - anon

I find the average sentiment of $GME investors deeply disappointing. While being perfectly happy to mock other meme investors for being irrational, the unwillingness to engage in a rational conversation about what is known and what is not when it comes to GME follows a similar logical pattern used by those being mocked. There is zero evidence DRS has done anything to help the price, nor is there evidence it will squeeze shorts (and let’s be honest that is what most are here for). Meanwhile we know for a fact options caused the event in jan2021 and was the reason the buy had to be shut off, yet everyone is scared to use them. Almost everyone i have engaged with does not understand how markets move, yet believes something with zero evidence will magically result in what they desire. They are missing the point of DRS, and are incorrectly scared to participate in the options market. I’d like for the #GME / #GameStop investor community to consider that they have converged on the wrong strategy to achieve their goals, and shift back to a rational assessment of the situation, rather than relying on or expecting something fundamentally unprovable to achieve their goals. I understand this is controversial to say to the community and many will choose to block me as they feel assaulted by my words, but given the DRS mania that reached popularity since last october i feel obligated to chime in and reignite a rational discussion about how price action actually evolves in the stock market. Saying the price is fake, manipulation, etc is a cop out, and a way of shirking the responsibility to understand what you are doing to achieve your goals. While GameStop balance sheet will improve and has been, you cannot linearly extrapolate the success to date moving forward, we are in a different monetary regime. Yes Cohen has done a good job so far, and this will likely cause institutions to buy it eventually, but you cannot claim #DRS has any effect other than reducing liquidity and counterparty risk. You should not rely on stories of hidden shorts, a lot can change in 3 years and everyone seems wholly convinced nothing has changed. Superstonk, like all subreddits, is a hive mind, and if the influential nodes in a network become convinced that something false is true and propagate that, the entire network devolves into irrationality. And if they simultaneously silence the ability to fact check, or cancel information at odds with the network consensus you get stuck in a fixed point of opinion which is not guaranteed to be optimal, let alone correct. I would like to make the claim that DRS has been sufficiently done, and that we should use the illiquidity it has afforded the stock to our advantage, by forcing market makers to buy through hedging mechanisms. To be clear, I want the community to be open to discussion about this, and fully expect it to be rejected by nonsense or emotional claims, but i feel it is worth bringing up to try to break the GME hyper-agent out of its irrational fixed point. If you are truly gamers, you need to play the actual game to win, not opt out of it. I will tag a few people here who i perceive to be influential in the hopes they help to move the conversation forward: @Cousin_Swen @VonZipperFace @ConwayYen @peruvian_bull @PlatnumSparkles @itswooch Below i will include a simplified toy model that (hopefully clearly) describes how market maker hedging works through the options market, and how this works in real life through the order book.