Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. This entire post represents my personal views and opinions, and should not be taken as financial advice (or advice of any kind whatsoever). I encourage you to do your own research, take anything I write with a grain of salt, and hold me accountable for any mistakes you may catch. Also, full disclosure, I hold a net long position in GME, but my cost basis is very low, and I'm using money I can absolutely lose. My capital at risk and tolerance for risk generally is likely substantially different than yours.
Before I get into Monday's action, a couple of things:
I wanted to first give a shout out to piddlesthethug for capturing this screenshot, which shows that moment in time I referenced in my third Gamestop post, where some poor soul got sniped while sweeping the 29 January 115 calls. I added it into the post with an edit, but my guess is most who read the post a while back would have missed it. I guess my mental math in the moment was off as you can see from the image that the cost was actually just shy of $500k rather than $440k as I wrote in the post. Brutal.
People have also asked me where I stand on this trade. I was lucky to get in early, trade some momentum, and retain a sizeable core holding (relative to my play account). As I've mentioned some comments, my core holding, which I will hold until this saga plays itself out, would buy me a new car, all cash. Though after today I'd have to downgrade from a lower end Lexus to a Corolla lol.
Alright, so, today's action.
I have to admit that I was just glancing at the chart between writing emails, working on excel spreadsheets, conference calls, and meetings. Whenever I could, I was listening to CNBC in the background, and taking a closer look whenever I heard anything that might move sentiment, or theoretically telegraph an attack as had happened so many times last week.
In my opinion the price action played out almost by-the-numbers according to a squeeze campaign strategy as I laid out in my previous post. I want to be clear, however, that while it was consistent with what I laid out (liquidity drying up, trying to skirmish at lower and lower price points), you could reasonably interpret it other ways. As I mentioned in at least one comment, seeing things play out in a manner consistent with your expectations is by no means positive confirmation that your thesis is correct. It just happens to be consistent with the evidence you have so far. Always keep that in mind.
I tried responding to a few comments and questions in realtime as I got notifications on my phone. Just as a heads up, I won't always be able to do so, and it seems like there were a number of knowledgeable people commenting in realtime anyway. As I've said in comments on my previous posts, I am definitely not the smartest person in the room, so don't just take my word for it just because I'm the original poster. Please challenge anything I say if you feel I'm mistaken, and don't dismiss out of hand people who may have a different viewpoint.
One thing I thought I noticed in early morning market hours action was that there was no sell order depth above the ticker price, which I interpret as a good sign. Downward pushes into fairly good volume got sucked back up largely in a low-volume vacuum. The most extreme example of this was the first push right at market open. Tons of volume to push the price down, then a tiny fraction of volume as price got sucked back up. This means very little continued panicking and bailing due to the aggressive push, resulting in gaps to the upside on the follow-on buying. There were messages and comments from people concerned that low price would let the short side cover, but, as I explained, low price doesn't help the short side unless they can buy at that low price in meaningful volume. That sort of action where price gaps up as soon as buying (whether by shorts or longs) is driving price tells you that there isn't much meaningful volume to be had at the lower prices. From a higher level view, volume through the day dropped as price dropped, and that seems to have remained consistently true throughout the day.
There was some very strange after-market volume. No idea what that may have been, other than maybe hedge unwinding as T+2 contract settlement outcomes were determined. It seemed, at least to me, to be too much volume in too dense a time window to be retailers bailing out of their accounts en mass. It would make no sense to do so into the vacuum of after hours anyway rather than the firmer price support of market hours.
I got messages that I was both a short side hedge fund shill and a long side pump and dump fraudster trying to somehow take peoples' money. My sentiment analysis KPIs thus indicate I'm likely striking a healthy balance (lol).

The Game (Theory)

Ok, but seriously, is this situation a pump and dump?
Possibly.
I say possibly because, as I stated in a comment, a failed squeeze campaign is effectively identical to a pump and dump in that the only thing that happens is capital is transferred mostly from people who got in later to people who got in earlier. Even worse, in aggregate a good amount of capital may end up being transferred from the campaigners to the short side. Not that it was necessarily intended to be that way from the start--it's just what ends up happening if the campaign fails.
Ok, so failure aside, what are the dynamics of the trade? What kind of game is this?
In simplified terms, I'd describe a squeeze campaign where the short side doubles down as a modified dollar auction where the winning side also takes the losing side's bid money. In other words, at an aggregate level, it's winner take all, go hard or go home, with all the excitement of market action in the middle. Note that I said in aggregate and with market action in the middle, as that basically means even the winning side will have individuals who lose possibly everything if they get washed out before the end. As I mentioned in some comments where I urged people to consider taking profits if they needed the money, this is going to be a white-knuckle trade to the very end.

Power

For most of our lives, most of the time, the saying that 'information is power' and the closely related 'knowledge is power' are abstract, philosophical truisms that people say to try to sound cool and edgy. More tangible and relevant to our daily lives might be 'money is power', or, for the least fortunate, the threat and reality of physical force.
Today, for many in the GME trade, that previously abstract philosophical truism gained intense and urgent relevance. What is current SI? Can you trust numbers from S3? What about Ortex? Are there counterfeit shares in play? What is the significance of Failures to Deliver? Can the short side cover their position off the exchange? etc. etc.
Being in this situation, if nothing else, has lifted the veil for many people. The right information, in the right circumstances, is incredibly powerful. It outlines in stark contrast the power dynamics of information asymmetry.
If you want to exercise more agency in your future as a trader and investor, you have to make a habit of cultivating your critical thinking skills and ensuring you have diverse and often divergent sources of information. Do not let yourself be trapped in an information bubble where you can be easily manipulated. Most of all, try to avoid developing a siege mentality at all costs. If nothing else, in my opinion, it's critical for your long-term financial success.
I don't know the answer to those questions definitively, and my purpose in creating this account and posting is absolutely not to get people to listen and necessarily believe everything I write. In fact, it would make me happier if I see people use some of the tools, techniques, and concepts I've tried to introduce to challenge some of my thinking. Catching my mistakes helps me. Doing it in the open for all to read helps everyone.

Faith, Conviction, Calculated Risk

Many people trade and invest according to wildly divergent strategies.
Some people, including those that most Wall Street types consider to be 'responsible' investors, invest on blind faith. You put your capital is someone else's hands (hopefully a qualified fiduciary), and trust that they will do a good job. The only judgment you exercise really is in choosing the person(s) in which to place your faith. This is not entirely unlike what many WSBettors are doing with respect to DFV. I do this with my retirement accounts, though lately I've been considering transferring about half my retirement capital to a self-directed IRA.
Others trade on conviction. They have, for whatever reason, a very strong belief in an investment thesis that they are willing to put to the test by putting capital at risk, and are willing to lean into the thesis through unfavorable price action so long as no disconfirming evidence comes to light. I consider value investors to fall into this category.
Others are momentum traders and 'technical analysts', who are trying to read the market data to look for asymmetrical calculated risk opportunity. These opportunities need not necessarily be tied to any particular underlying fundamental investment thesis. All that matters is whether you win on a sufficiently frequent basis and carefully manage your downside risk.
I think it's healthy to try to gain an understanding of all three approaches. I personally also find it necessary to be careful if you find yourself switching between those approaches mid-trade. I.e., if you started in the GME trade on faith, it may be deeply disturbing if you find yourself in the no-man's land between faith and conviction, where you have learned enough to understand more of the risks in the trade, but not enough to understand the underlying investment thesis of how it could play out. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to make that transition--just try to maintain self awareness if you choose to do so to avoid making any rash decisions.

Swimming In The Deep

So, the consistent #1 question I always get: what happens next? My consistent answer, which I know frustrates everyone, is I don't know, and no one else does either.
One person in the comments made an astute observation that perhaps the truth, which some may find disturbing, is that our fate really lies in the hands of the whales on the long side rather than retail being in the driver's seat. This may very well be true. I would give it better than even odds at this point. In fact, even if retail collectively represents more shares in this trade, retail is not a well-organized, monolithic entity, and therefore would have more difficulty playing a decisive role at critical times.
Another question I got, which was a very good one to be asking, is what evidence do we have that there really are whales on the long side? For me, there have been critical actions over the past few days that I would have found to be highly unlikely to be achievable by retail investors, such as the sustained HFT duel into the close on Friday. That was very consistent, relatively well controlled, and sustained push on volume of 6-7mio shares traded in the $250 - $330/share price range. Oversimplified math would peg that at just shy of $2bn in capital flow. That is not retail--particularly with so many retail brokerages restricting trading at that time. The 17mio shares sold into the aftermarket action consistent with a squeeze (and Ortex reported reduction in short interest) is also definitely not retail. Others have pointed out massive action in the options today. Tons of block purchases in the millions of dollars and high 6 figures. Not retail.
All of that being said, does that really change very much? Even if you consider yourself to be part of a movement, and have genuine feelings of solidarity with your retail fellows (I do, which is why I'm writing these posts and holding that core position), in the end you are trading as an individual. This is a point that I have made repeatedly. In the end, you need to know yourself, know your trade, and have a plan. Your plan may conceivably be to follow someone else (I know many are following DFV to whatever the end may be), but in the end even that is still your plan as an individual.
If my thesis is correct we will continue to see lower trade volumes, and price grinding down to a floor of harder support, possibly even at the retail line of support (~$148/$150) I outlined in a prior post. There may also be some price dislocation tomorrow depending on options contract T+2 settlement impact. I don't know enough about what to expect there. If the squeeze is to happen, unless RH lifting restrictions or people transferring their accounts causes a surge of retail momentum, it will happen after that type of price movement continues for a while (maybe days, maybe longer), until sufficient liquid float has been locked up.
Right now options action is heavily weighted to puts, so any market maker hedging activity will put more pressure on price.
If the squeeze fails to happen there won't be a siren, ringing of a bell, or anything like that. It might happen gradually and non-obviously until suddenly, as only the market seems to be able to do, it becomes obvious that whoever's still there has been left holding the bag. Hopefully this isn't the case, but if it is I'll be right there with what at that point may only buy me a razor scooter rather than a car lol.
If it succeeds, it should be fairly obvious. Just don't forget to ring the register!
Either way, this is market history in the making. As I said in a previous comment, when you ride the rocket, it's definitely not going to be smooth--but it might just be awesome.
Apologies for the lengthy post again. Good luck in the market!

Need help calculating double elimination tournament odds (hypothetical)

Marshmallow Mania and the Cult of 240F.

Big Mallow is a cabal that's been spreading disinformation. 240F is a big, fat, arbitrary lie.
(tl;dr: Marshmallow Mania hit me, and I spent 20+ hours making marshmallows. My findings suggest that the texture of marshmallows is dependent on the sum total proportions of the marshmallow ingredients, not the degree of sugar syrup heating. 240F is an arbitrary syrup temperature, and is used across the board for relatively similar ingredient proportions.)
A short time ago, I was developing my "egg yolk-based marshmallow"/marshyellow recipe (still needs a bit of tweaking). I was doing some research, and noticed something kind of...odd about the information regarding a specific step.
Here's the Wikipedia entry for making marshmallows that gave me pause, courtesy of Chocolates and confections: Formula, theory, and technique for the artisan confectioner:
Anything jump out at you? No? That might be because you haven't read a variety of marshmallow recipes.

Bruno aside, they ALL place marshmallows at 238F-240F. I've seen a lot of marshmallow recipes in my time, and I've NEVER seen Wikipedia's method of 227F. (And I was so confused by Bruno's recipe...265F was way higher than any I'd seen. But we'll come back to this.)
Wait, it gets even more confusing.

Now, here's a chart about sugar syrups: Note the location of marshmallows in their chart.
Cook's Info on where 'mallows belong:
LorAnnOils: They place marshmallows in the firm-ball stage.

My confusion kept growing with every article I read. Everyone's telling me something different. Recipes that call for soft-ball! No, proclaim the sugar syrup stages, firm-ball or hard-ball! And for some reason, Wikipedia's telling me the THREAD stage is what you want. This was perturbing; if baking is a science, my impression of candy making is that of analytical chemistry. It's precise, exact, and demands strict adherence to the recipe beyond what baking asks and cajoles. I was under the impression that the sugar syrup's concentration is critical to somehow correctly forming marshmallows. So what's going on here? Why's everyone using the same temperature in their recipes, despite background info to the contrary?
Clearly, there's a conspiracy being perpetrated by Big Mallow. They're trying to keep us in the dark, to prevent us from tinkering with marshmallow recipes.
So I...um...made a ton of marshmallows to figure this out. (pictured: about 2/3 of every batch I made, along with some marshyellow variants) Marshmallow Mania reigned supreme, and I spent an ungodly amount of time making them for both this experiment, and for my marshyellow recipe improvement. I'll also note that I had to eat an ungodly number of the stupid clouds of sugar and fluff, and would gladly never consume another so long as I draw breath.
First, to determine if you can make marshmallows at all of the claimed stages. I checked my thermometer in a pot of boiling water to ensure accurate readings. Then I made batches of marshmallows at varying sugar syrup temperatures.
Here's my recipe and methodology (base recipe is based on a scaled-down version of Migoya's 'mallows):
8g powdered gelatin
47g cold water
110g granulated, white sugar
120g corn syrup
50g water
3g salt
~2.5mL vanilla extract
In the bowl of a stand mixer, bloom the gelatin in the cold water. Combine sugar, corn syrup, and water in a saucepan. Heat to (VARIABLE) temperature, and slowly add to bloomed gelatin, while whipping on medium-low speed. Turn mixer speed to max, and whip for exactly five minutes, adding the salt and vanilla halfway through. Using a greased spatula, scoop as much batter as possible into a greased pan, and use a greased offset spatula to smooth the top. Let sit for a minimum of 8 hours to cure, then cut into cubes and coat in an equal mixture (w/w) of cornstarch and powdered sugar.
Between each batch, I scrupulously cleaned all utensils with hot water to avoid sugar crystal residue.
Left-to-right: 225F. 230F, 240F, 245F, 250F, 262F
After coating, the marshmallows were stored at room temperature in ziploc bags to maintain freshness/moisture contents.
The most apparent conclusion is that, yes, you can ABSOLUTELY make marshmallows at varying sugar syrup stages. Well, in a sense. They're all "marshmallows", in the sense that they're masses of aerated, gelatinized sugar blobs. I'm sure plenty of people have their own personal textural notions of what a "marshmallow" should be. But here are the differences:
Volume: Due to what I imagine is increased viscosity (due to decreased water concentrations of the syrup), the volume of batter decreases proportionally to elevated sugar temps. Here, you can see the two extremes, 225F vs 262F.
Weight: The lower temps allowed for increased aeration, which resulted in larger yields of 'mallow, and there's a downward trend corresponding to total batch weights and increased syrup temps. (225F->262F respectively, 249g, 242g, 222g, 211g, 203g, 165g)
Texture: The higher the syrup temp, the chewier and more "taffy-like" the marshmallow. Charybdis, my poor stand mixer, had a tough time whipping the 262F, that stuff was t h i c c. In contrast, the 225F melts in your mouth, with barely any chew. Far more pillowy, jiggly, etc.
Caramelization: The lower the syrup temp, the higher the final moisture content. Held 10cm away from a torch, I noticed that it took slightly longer to caramelize the lower temp marshmallows. I wonder if there's also an aeration-based insulation factor at work (given the apparent increase in aeration in the lower-temp syrups).
So now I knew you can make marshmallows at most sugar syrup stages (I haven't tried soft-crack and upwards, I fear for my stand mixer's health after the 262F). Then I had a thought: what if the sugar syrup was a function of achieving a specific texture?
Enter the final experiment. Let's take the taffymallows of 262F and see if we can turn them into 230F squishmallows. At 262F, the sugar concentration is ~92%, and at 230F, it's ~80%. I calculated the amount of water lost at 262F, and added an amount of water to the gelatin that would correspond to the concentration at 230F. I figured it's easier to work "backwards", ie, make a higher temp identical to a lower temp. Going "forwards" might create an issue where reducing the water added to the gelatin leads to insufficient bloom. I don't thiiink you can "over-bloom" gelatin, so I doubt the reverse is true.
Well. Here's the faux-230F with the real 230F::
[Compare the volume difference of the faux-230F to the 262F and the 225F. By visual inspection, they were about double in volume to the original 262F! And the texture was near-identical in nature to the 230F. The former were ever-so-slightly softer and "meltier", but they were also made a day or so after the latter, and I'm convinced that this accounts for the minor discrepancy. The final batch weights were identical too, suggesting similar aeration percentages.
(Note: The fact that they're identical is a happy coincidence. There will be minor discrepancies due to unequal scooping of the batter into the pans, as well as additional mass from the sugacornstarch mixture. I cut all the batches into similar size cubes, so the surface areas would be similar, and they'd pick up similar quantities of the mixture.)
Suddenly, Bruno's aberrant 265F temperature made sense. His recipe uses egg whites in addition to gelatin, and egg whites are ~90% water. He heats his syrup to a much higher stage to compensate for the additional moisture content. I imagine that if you followed his recipe to a T, but stuck with good ol' 240F, the marshmallows would barely have much structure, and would be closer to the 225F squishmallows than what you'd typically want out of a marshmallow.
I did a repeat experiment with a different final hydration stage: 262F to 240F. The results were the same as before: I compared the product to my 262F and 240F marshmallows, and again, the faux-240F were no different than the real 240F (save, again, for a near-imperceptible difference for the same given reason as before).
Now, I refuse to say "I conclude X to be true", because my experiment isn't rigorous in the least. I didn't repeat each step numerous times, testing every possible extreme, I didn't test every potential example, etc. I would, but I think I'd go nuts, as I'd have an issue juggling this with my full-time job and other hobbies. I also nearly ran out of my 1lb tub of gelatin. So I'm going to leave it as "the data suggests that..."
But the general idea this all suggests - aside from me being crazy - is that you can alter marshmallow recipes to achieve a texture you prefer simply by changing either the syrup temperature, or the gelatin hydration. If you found a nice recipe for egg white marshmallows, but find them too soft for your liking, you can decrease the gelatin hydration within reason, and/or increase the sugar syrup temperature by some amount to make them chewier and more stable. If you don't mind the bit of math, you use this info to take more control of the marshmallow process.
I'm still not sure why people so unanimously use 240F as their temperature. I can imagine a scenario where Head Chef tells their underlings "Heat it to 240F, because [something something reasonable-yet-incorrect explanation]", and everyone follows HC's lead and reasoning. They move up the ranks, and proliferate HC's recipes, and if challenged about the reasoning, refer to HC's expertise to bolster their claims. Look how many differing explanations people have about brownie skin/crust formation: It's easier to pull from your combined experience and instinct, and offer up a reasonable explanation, than to rigorously experiment your way to the answer. Or maybe there's actually a cult, I dunno.
But anyhow, thus concludes the week of the marshmallow. Please subject to peer review if you're also marshmallow-obsessed. I'd love additional insights and data!

How to Survive Camping - old habits die hard

I run a private campground. One of the things I have to think about is fire management. Obviously, there’s a lot of wood around here. And obviously, if the campground goes up in flames, I lose my livelihood. I do some land management to protect against that by clearing out dry underbrush periodically and put in rules about fire pits and my staff make routine inspections to make sure they’re followed. Many of you have suggested using fire as a weapon against the inhuman things and each time I point out that this is a forest and while we don’t have a lot of dry wood, the odds of the entire thing going up are not zero.
And then I went and threw a molotov cocktail into a room entirely made of wood.
In my defense, it wasn’t technically in the campground. Only very technically.
If you’re new here, you should really start at the beginning and if you’re totally lost, this might help.
Beau’s assistance had cleared the thorns from my body. I spent a miserable few days coughing up plant matter. At least it’s winter so we don’t have much work to do and I could sit in my house and play video games as a distraction. I’m super obsessed with Octopath Traveler right now.
There were still the thorns planted throughout the campground to deal with, however. I wasn’t terribly worried. We had the stone, the one that contained the thorn’s death, and all I had to do was summon Beau and figure out what the next step was.
Of course, when I summoned him, he didn’t show. I had even made hot chocolate with a bit of Bailey’s. So I drank it all myself and then fueled by booze and a sugar high, I went tromping through the snow to find him.
The thought of him being in danger or otherwise unable to respond was only a vague worry. He’s been elusive ever since I refused to go to the harvesters. It’s hard to tell if he’s angry at me or just being moody. It certainly isn’t because I’m good enough with a knife that I don’t need his help anymore. I intended to ask him what the problem was, once I found him. I decided to walk along the road through the deep woods, as that was both the safest place and where he tended to be found.
It took a few days of hiking around the campsite, but I eventually found Beau. He was up ahead on the road, waiting for me. As I approached, he turned and began walking again, so that I could catch up and we walked along side-by-side.
“I haven’t seen you much,” I said tentatively.
“I’m avoiding you.”
“That’s obvious.”
I waited, but no explanation was forthcoming.
“Did I… upset you?”
He seemed genuinely confused as to why, so I explained how I saw the situation. How I’d ignored his suggestion and gone to the hall of the gummy bears instead. He gave a soft laugh at that and reminded me - once again - that he was not human.
“Why would I take offense?” he asked. “You made a choice that was yours to make.”
“Then why are you avoiding me?”
We walked along in silence for a bit more and the only sound was the packed snow crunching beneath our feet. I was careful to keep some distance between us, keenly aware that my mere presence was contrary to his nature. Like magnets, I thought, pushing each other away.
“You’re marked for death,” he finally sighed. “It hovers over your head like a halo. Here is my mark, wrought of blood.”
He stepped close and gestured, his hand passing through the space a few inches from my hair.
“There are more, now. All of these bargains and debts you’ve accumulated, twisting together into a cord that will someday settle tight around your neck and take away your life.”
“And you’re bound to me,” I whispered.
He took a single step backwards, dropping his hand by his side, his expression grim.
“I feel the fomorian’s mark upon me as well. I do not care to accumulate more.”
I asked him to describe them to me. He hesitated, and then very reluctantly, told me a few. One of shadow, trailing in the wind as if the slightest breeze would eradicate it. I suppose that’s what happens when the person who made that mark is trapped inside the thing in the dark. Good riddance to him. Another of iron, shattered now, and crumbling. The lady with extra eyes. One of thorns, marking the intent of the fomorian.
And of course, a crown of teeth. A very old crown, passed down along the family line. The claim of the beast.
There were more, he said, but he refused to elaborate. He seemed uneasy, as if merely describing them was more familiarity than he cared to have. I didn’t press. Honestly, I’m not sure I want to know exactly how many creatures have it out for me. I’d probably never sleep again out of paranoia.
He soon turned off the road and into the woods. I followed a bit more slowly, struggling through the deep snow. The temperature has been in the teens lately, with the windchill bringing it down to single digits. I envied Beau and his total indifference to the cold.
He led me to a patch of thorns. It was one I knew of already and had tried to uproot. The snow around it was mixed with loose soil from earlier attempts. Let me tell you - it is really tough to dig up bushes in the middle of the winter with the ground as frozen as it is.
Beau extended his cup and held it up over the thorns. He tilted it, slowly, until a thin stream of liquid poured forth. It steamed in the cold air and melted the snow where it struck the ground at the base of the thorns.
“Is that it?” I asked softly. “This will kill them?”
“Yes. My cup carries the stone’s essence and the roots of the thorns will drink deeply of their own death.”
“I’m surprised you’re helping me so directly.”
“It’s not just for you,” he replied, his eyes narrowed as he watched the contents of his skull steam in the snow. “This is my home and as you recall, I am unable to leave it. I have no desire to be ruled by a tyrant.”
A thought occurred to me.
“Do the other inhabitants feel the same?”
“Of course. Do you recall how the musician saved you from the horse?”
Ah. I’d not thought too much of it at the time. I was helping them out with the children, after all, so it stood to reason that they’d want to repay the favor by saving my life. We stood in silence for a bit longer, watching the thorns shrivel into withered, dry branches where the liquid from Beau’s cup had touched them. I could only imagine the roots were now doing the same. Tentatively, I reached out and tapped one of the afflicted branches. It broke off as if it were made of spun sugar and smashed into dust when it landed in the snow. As if it’d been dead for centuries.
“Could I get help from the other inhabitants of the campground?” I asked. “I know the fairy doesn’t want help, but we still have to deal with the formorian’s indirect effects on the land.”
“Don’t,” Beau replied sharply. “You would only endanger them. They won’t take such a risk.”
“You’re helping me,” I said pointedly.
He grunted and turned his back to me, walking back towards the road.
“I was already marked by my association with you,” he said.
When I was trapped in the dream that the master of the vanishing house had wove for me, I told it that I could not love it, for everything I love dies. It feels like another lifetime ago. I withdrew my hand from the bush and stuffed it in my pocket as I hastily followed Beau.
He went from bush to bush, repeating the process with each. After a few more I realized that my presence was entirely unnecessary and probably even annoying to him, so I awkwardly thanked him and excused myself.
I went back to the house and played more video games. I only felt a little guilty about it.
The next day I stumbled into the kitchen and brewed coffee. Then, mug in hand, I went to the kitchen table and pulled back the curtains to get some early morning sunlight.
Beau was standing directly outside.
I screamed in surprise and dropped my mug. It was my “Live, Laugh, Love” mug that I took from the camp lost and found so it wasn’t a huge loss. We wind up with quite a few mugs in lost and found and hardly any of them get claimed. After a year they become camp property. I can’t remember the last time I bought myself a mug.
I invited Beau in while I cleaned up the mess. He hovered uncomfortably in the archway between the kitchen and the living room, not saying anything. Only when I was done mopping up coffee did I turn and ask him what he wanted.
He presented his cup in mute explanation. Only a small drop of liquid remained inside.
“Where’s the pebble?” I asked, going to get my sharpest kitchen knife.
“I still have it, in case the fomorian plants more thorns.”
Blood from that which was already there. Blood freely given. I held out my palm and let my blood drop into the cup.
“Where do you plan on getting the blood forcibly taken?” I asked softly.
I wasn’t sure I wanted to know. The only staff on site during the winter were my most trusted people, like Ed and Bryan. I didn’t want any of them to be targets.
“I want to leave the campground.”
I sucked in an involuntary breath. He wanted to take blood from someone outside my land. One of the townspeople, perhaps. They’d thrown an uproar over him poisoning a few people on Halloween. I hated to think how they’d react to him stabbing someone.
“Do you have someone in mind?” I asked.
“I do.”“Will you kill them?”
“Will my answer change your decision?”
No. It would not. I needed Beau. And Perchta’s warning… well, it was not so black and white as I’d assumed. There was some flexibility here.
I wish I were surprised by how easily I slipped back into old habits. The same old rationalizations. Better someone else’s life than my own. Better a stranger’s life than someone I know. It feels inevitable that I would resort to this. It takes more than a threat to turn someone into a good person.
I won’t apologize. I won’t make excuses. You know what kind of person I am. I did the calculations, weighed my options, and this is what I chose.
I got my car keys and told Beau to come with me.
We went to someone that lived on the outskirts of town. It took a while to get there, as Beau couldn’t tell me what roads to turn on. He could only give directions in a vague sense, such as east or west. At least he was patient. He barely moved, sitting in the passenger seat, not wearing a seatbelt, with his cup cradled against his chest. Finally, he told me we’d arrived and I pulled into the driveway of a small house surrounded by a stretch of overgrown field that was subsequently swallowed up by forest. A black pickup truck was parked in the gravel driveway.
Beau got out. I stayed where I was for a moment, nervously holding onto the steering wheel, and then I reluctantly followed him. Better if I saw this through. I had to know what I’d done.
He knocked on the door. A man in his late forties, perhaps, answered. His hair was thinning. He squinted at Beau suspiciously.
And Beau… gestured with one hand. Just a simple half-twist of his wrist.
The man coughed. Blood spurted out of his mouth. It streamed from his nose. And my insides twisted with horror as his eyes began to leak blood, as it spilled out through his tear ducts. It beaded up on his forehead, forced out through every one of his pores. It streamed out of him through every available channel, soaking his clothing, dripping from his ears, and he twitched and shook and choked as his skin grew white and his heart raced and then finally collapsed on itself.
He landed face-first onto the pavement of his porch. The blood floated above him as a red mist and Beau made another subtle gesture, directing it to gracefully stream like a river through the air and into his cup. There was far more blood than the vessel could contain - an entire human body’s worth - but the cup never overflowed. It filled and filled, brilliant crimson like a ruby, until there was none left to take.
The bloodless corpse lay on the ground with not a mark on it to indicate what had happened.
I realized that my hands were trembling. I struggled to move, to find my voice. Beau turned around and faced me and there was a soft, satisfied smile on his face.
“Have you always been able to do that?” I demanded, my voice coming out higher than I’d prefer, betraying my panic.
“Yes.”
The expression on the man’s face was burned into my mind. His desperate agony, tears of blood streaming down his cheeks, his body rigid as his own blood clawed its way free of his veins. I tried to banish it with something else. Anything else.
“So the time I found a body like that and spent three weeks hanging garlic up everywhere thinking we had a vampire on the campground… that was you?”
“Yes.”
I took a breath, trying to calm my nerves.
“Do you have any idea how much I spent on garlic?!”
“Do I care?”
I whirled away from him and stalked back to the car, digging my hands into my hair. Okay, the garlic didn’t matter. I just… that was what came to my mind first. Trying to bury what I’d just seen in something more mundane, I suppose. Trying to distract myself from the fact that Beau could kill people in a far more horrifying way than simply slitting their throat or fatally poisoning them.
At least it was relatively fast. I took a deep breath and opened my car door. He’d threatened me with worse when I first met him.
It was a tense drive back to the campground. When we were back on familiar roads I thought to ask Beau why he’d chosen this person, specifically.
“He double-parks.”
“And?”
He glanced at me in mild surprise.
“What else do you need?”
“Are you kidding me? I just let you murder someone because they double-park?”
“Murder?” His tone was sharp. “You let me refill my cup. I drained it to save your land. You ensured my survival.”
Whatever it takes. The family tradition. My grandfather killed his share to protect our land. My parent’s hands certainly weren’t clean. And nor are mine.
I wish I could say that was the end of it. That I let Beau out once we were back at my house and he wandered off and nothing else happened. But what we’d done was not going to go unnoticed.
I stayed up late that night. I was awake because I was playing video games and making yet another attempt at killing that damn direwolf in Octopath Traveler, like seriously, why is that thing so hard to kill? I must be doing something wrong. So after watching my party get their faces ripped off for like the fifth time I finally turned the TV off and went to bed. It was midnight. The little girl was crying softly by the window.
I’d barely climbed into bed when she stopped. I froze. That was never a good sign.
“Oh no,” the little girl whispered. “No no no no.”
I acted on instinct. I threw myself out of bed and took cover behind it. The little girl screamed in fright and then my window shattered. The house shook with the impact. For a moment everything was still, save for the tinkling of some glass remnants striking the ground and the wild sobbing of the little girl.
Then…
“Campground manager!” the fomorian bellowed.
My blood ran cold. I felt frozen in place, cowering there next to the bed. The fomorian’s voice came at a distance. It wasn’t over the house’s property line, at least.
“I will find the one that killed my thorns at your behest!” it continued. “I will drag him here and I will tear him apart, little by little, and eat him alive. You will be helpless to watch and know what fate awaits you.”
Then I heard the cry of a horse and the sound of hoofbeats, receding into the distance. A warning. This was only a warning.
The fomorian intended to kill Beau.
Tentatively, I stood and turned on the bedside light. There was a body wedged through the broken window. It couldn’t fit through the frame, but it’d shattered the glass and now its head and part of its upper body was stuck. The hood of its garment mercifully covered its face, for I recognized it by its bulk.
One of the musicians. The fomorian had killed one of the dancer’s musicians. And, my heart sinking, I knew that it had to be the one that had rescued me from the dapple-gray stallion’s hooves.
I kill everything I love. Everything that gets close to me.
I’m a campground manager. I am also my mother’s daughter and the product of generations that believed life was expendable and we were but prey to these inhuman things. Herd animals, and sometimes one of our own had to be sacrificed to save the rest.
I’m certain that the new sheriff will find out about the body. She might not assume it was me, but I’ll be involved regardless. My family always is, when an odd death occurs. She’ll send the old sheriff because he’s better at dealing with me. And then what? Do I lie to him? I could. I think he’d believe me. I’ve gotten quite good at lying over the years doing this job.
It’s odd, how the thought of lying to him bothers me more than murdering that man did. I suppose that’s a consequence of sentimentality.
Sometimes I think I feel too little and sometimes I wish I didn’t feel so much. I’m starting to think… that maybe I’m a little more messed up inside than I thought.
Do I love Beau? I… would be sad if he were gone. Even after seeing what he did to that man. The need to refill his cup was real, but the criteria with which he chose his victim was… petty. That, I think, is cruelty. Beau is cruel. I can not defend him. Yet humans are stupid, emotional things and we form attachments without even realizing it until one day we realize how painful their absence will be. We bond with animals, with plants, and with people that don’t even exist - a character in a video game or a book.
I suppose I love Beau in the same way I love the barn cat with the kinked tail or the plant that my uncle gave me or Therion in Octopath Traveler.
I don’t want him to die. [x]
Read the full list of rules.
Visit the campground's website.

A SIR_JACK_A_LOT Christmas Carol - My magnum dong opus on turning $35K to $1.75M (50X) in less than a year

"Mindmed Forecast/Fundamental Case" [BULLISH] {MMEDF}

The original author's account was deleted, so unfortunately I can't credit them. Regardless, full credit to them. This post was included in the deletion, so it took a decent amount of digging to find and save. Shoutout to u/adamfixeseverything. Enjoy. -

Hey guys,
I thought I’d post about my thoughts on MMED. First of all, please do your own due diligence and do not fall victim to the pump, hype and euphoria. These are highly speculative investments and have significant risk associated. All that said, there have been many requests for fundamental analysis and MMED projections so I wanted to provide my thoughts.
*All figures in USD (market cap, sales) except for my investment holdings. I purchased MMED.NE shares. Source data available as well, but got messy with all the 10-k filings and links in the table.
Entry Point
First and foremost, I want to address the most commonly raised question on this thread: “Is it too late to buy MMED?” Any investment is subject to the risk / reward paradigm. Those that got in at $0.3 deserve every penny they earned as MMED was by definition a penny stock and one of the most risky investments you could own. Since then, it has grown tremendously due to scientific milestones which have pointed to significant progress in the industry.
The milestones MMED has achieved have DERISKED MMED from a penny stock to a small cap biotech company with a very large drug portfolio and numerous future catalysts. I do not expect to make 10x my investment in a week, nor should you. Is there still tremendous upside even at the current valuation of ~$1.5bn? I strongly believe so and will let my position reinforce that.
I entered this space with an average cost of ~$4.9 CAD, holding 311,206 shares, and a book value of ~1.5MM. Yes you read that correctly. Do I panic every day and check the ticker? No. Does my heart beat thinking of the time I evaporated ~$500,000 in unrealized loss when the stock was at $3.4? No. In fact, I continue to pick up shares at what I believe is a discounted valuation. There will be many that look at $4.9 entry point and think that even I got in at the bottom. It’s all relative.

OP's Original Investment
I only invested what I could afford to lose and although $1.5MM is a large sum of money, it is not my entire portfolio, nor would it impact my daily life. If I lost it all it would not impact my ability to service my mortgage, pay my bills, impact my other investments, nor prohibit me from doing the things I love. I continue to hold dry powder and monitor my investment on a monthly basis, while continuing to buy following successful milestones.
This is a very long term play that could fundamentally change the way we treat the body’s most important organ. We are just getting started. I have a very strong conviction on the future outcome of this industry and that is the reason I couldn’t be bothered about short term fluctuations. An important question to ask yourself is whether you believe MMED can reach its next scientific milestone. Take things one step at a time and is there a probability the next scientific update will be positive? Emphasis on science, ignoring NASDAQ, candlesticks, and capital structure (for now).
Institutional Capital
I work in finance (albeit project finance / private equity, and don’t value stocks for a living, so don’t consider me an expert here) but already know of a few moderately capitalized asset managers that are now participating in MMED. The recent bought deals are evidence of sophisticated capital flowing into this industry. I personally qualify as an ‘accredited investor’ and am having conversations constantly with folks in my circles who are investing heavily into these stocks. As more institutional capital flows in, the more stable these stocks become. Of course, this is all relative.
Access to liquidity
As with all brand new industries, the capital requirement is immense in order to bring products to market. What drew me into the space was the fact that MMED did raise capital. Biotech stocks do not have cashflow, thus their only path to fund operations is through equity raises. The fact that MMED was able to raise over $237MM CAD since May 2019 is a positive for this company. Yes it is dilutive, and good job for paying attention in finance 101 class, but bootstrapping a biotech company is not possible, nor is servicing debt.
The path to commercialization of will be full of obstacles, however a strong balance sheet with sufficient capital gives MMED the resources to get there. The current valuation has tremendous upside following scientific milestones and future equity raises and dilutions are a good thing, as it will be at an increased valuation.
There are definitely smaller cap companies out there that may double overnight, however for the risk / reward, I do not feel comfortable owning companies that don’t have a large balance sheet, nor a diversified drug portfolio.
Believe in the Science
I do not feel I am in a position to write original content on the efficacy of these drugs. I have done my research and read a fair number of published studies but anything that I write would simply be regurgitating what others have said.
The biggest investors in this space are those with personal experiences with psychedelics because you have first-hand experience of the profound meaning extracted from one treatment. The ability to dissolve your ego enables you to deal with the root cause of so many problems ranging from depression, PTSD and addition, without approaching the problem by numbing symptoms. Herein lies the inherent value of this industry and will simply take time to prove it through trails. I have the conviction to continue to invest because I believe in the science. The data to reinforce this is on its way, and I personally want to invest now, knowing that the likelihood of very significant catalysts are probable.
Forecasts
This of course is the elephant in the room for early investors, later[er] investors and bears alike. Is a $1.5bn market cap pricing in all of the upside already? Is this a $100bn stock? This company has zero revenues, shouldn’t it be worth zero?
The truth is, no one knows. There is tremendous risk with this company. However, I will not be selling unless we see some significant negative scientific outcomes. Again, less emphasis on stock price, NASDAQ, more emphasis on the science. Everything else will follow.
The various ways to value a company (DCF, sales / earnings multiples, liquidation value etc) all have their issues with an early stage company of this nature. Any sort of bottoms up DCF analysis is just guessing because variables such as patient count, dosage, pricing, market share, market penetration, amongst other have far too much variation to come up with a reliable figure. Discount rates and time horizon can favour your outcome depending on how aggressive / conservative you are.
Thus, the way I like to look at this market is a best case scenario for a single drug, based off historical sales data from one company and one drug. This implicitly takes into account patient dosage, competition, market share, market penetration etc, because one drug from one company has already proven its ability to capture such sales data.

Data
I have broken out annual sales data for various comparable drugs according to MMED’s current pipeline offering. This is the inherent benefit of MMED, is that it has a diverse portfolio covering many underserved issues. Like many of you, I believe MMED’s biggest blockbuster will be Layla, given the problem of Opioid addition plus MMED’s IP rights on 18-MC to corner sales. Suboxone is the current drug on the market due to delayed onset effects ranging from 24-36 hours, compared to someone in withdrawal uses fast acting opioids 3-4 times a day. Suboxone itself however is still addictive and has a long list of negative side effects. Furthermore, it does not correct dopamine dysregulation in patients.
The sales of Suboxone alone are growing at an ~9% CAGR, with sales expected to reach ~$4bn in 2028
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/08/18/2079779/0/en/Opioid-Use-Disorder-OUD-in-8-Major-Markets-2018-2028-Reformulations-of-Buprenorphine-Will-Drive-Growth.html.
The use case for 18-MC however, does not stop at Opioid addiction, and can be applied to alcohol dependency and smoking dependency among others. This means the TAM for 18-MC could be significantly larger than the existing market captured by Suboxone given its smaller demographics relative to 18-MC. Could Layla exhibit sales greater than Suboxone one day? Who knows. Sticking with comp sales for the analysis for now.
Various anxiety, depression and ADHD medication is also shown in the table to show sales potential of Lucy, Albert and the micro dose programmes.
Is there a possibility of a LSD, 18-MC, or LSD compound or derivative achieving blockbuster drug status? Do you think there is an inherent benefit to a psychedelic compared to an antidepressant sedative with side effects such as nausea, weight gain etc?
Your perceived probability and sales outcomes depends on whether you believe in the science. Those that don’t can easily be skeptical of a $1.5bn market cap many years away from profitability.
Those that do, look at the next half a dozen clinical trial outcomes as very probable and thus have applied a less punitive discount to the stock valuation. I have rationalized my decision to invest at $1.5MM because of my own perceived discount rate and confidence in the next 12 months of positive catalysts.
Valuation Multiples
Now, as many of you know, investors pay a multiple for the future earnings of a company, today. If a drug makes $1bn annually, investors will pay a multiple of future earnings expected over the drugs lifetime, discounted by various factors.
There are various metrics to use here, ranging from Enterprise Value / Sales or various types of earnings metrics. MMED is years away from having a real operating company, anything to sell, or even the corporate infrastructure to get it to market. However, the question has always been, how big do you think this company could get?
This is where things can get tricky. We used peak annual sales in the last section to forecast comparable estimates for MMED revenues. Thus, I believe it is appropriate to use mature, large cap trading multiples instead of early stage bio techs, as our revenue estimates were mature figures with stabilized growth. If we were to use companies / drugs earlier in their lifecycle or clinical phases, the trading multiples would be much higher because the market is buying potential future sales. Can’t have it both ways.

Chart
All of the chart data in the graph is specific to the pharma industry. However, there are various subsectors to the industry such as Contract Development Manufacturing and Contract Research Organization. MMED would likely have to partner with each of these types of firms to scale its business, better assess market size etc, but wouldn’t trade at similar multiples given a different business model. Same goes for Packaging and Distribution.
The graph also shows S&P average which is a good rule of thumb.

Other chart
Although the chart gives a good reference point for pharma multiples, I wanted to look at valuation from a more company specific perspective. The chart above shows large cap specialty pharma companies that are publically traded. This will give you an approximate median value of what the market is willing to pay for a company that has a certain amount of sales. As you can see in the green box, industry multiples of EV/EBIITDA or EV/Sales will basically get you to the same place. Median pharma industry EBITDA margins are in the 40% range with EV/Sales at ~4x vs EV/EBITDA of 10x.
Note that the above list of trading comps is stale data, as of Sept ’19. I only want to use public data and have refrained from using Bloomberg, Cap IQ etc. Thus the information I’m posting is merely reposts of info available on Google. As you can see, Allergan is listed in this table as a live trading comp, and has since been acquired by AbbVie. Accordingly, I want to highlight some notable M+A activity:
Amgen acquires Celgne’s plaque psoriasis drug, Otezla $13.4bn: EV / LTM Sales = 7.6x Thermo Fisher acquires Qiagen for $11.5bn: EV / LTM Sales = 7.3x Abbvie acquires Allergan for $84.2bn: EV / LTM Sales = 5.4x Elanco acquires Bayer’s animal health unit for $7.6bn: EV / LTM Sales = 4.5x As you can see, companies are willing to pay a premium in M&A to acquire competitors and drugs, due to synergies, reduction in SG&A etc.
This is a very long winded way of showing that if one of MMED’s compounds hits, and exhibits sales in line with any sort of comparable drug from the table above, this could be a $20-30 billion dollar company (~4bn*5-7x). If several of these drugs reach commercialization, this is potentially a $100 billion dollar company.
Now I agree that these projections are completely outlandish right now. I’m simply doing the exercise you all wanted.
Feel free to guess at your own forecast sales and multiply out enterprise value using the above metrics. Before you rip me apart for the extreme optimism, I understand that I’m using multiples for stable, reputable, large cap pharma. I understand that there is an extreme amount of stigma attached to psychedelics and achieving ubiquity for these treatments is a large uphill battle. There is an enormous amount of work, luck and time from now until sales and this is not to be under estimated.
Do I think MMED is worth $30-$100bn today? No.
Do I think MMED is worth somewhere in between today’s valuation and $30-$100bn?
Depends whether you believe in the science. If you’re reading this, odds are you do. I invested because I believe it too.
So instead, let’s take a lazy man’s approach to valuation and take things one step at a time.
Simpler Approach to Valuation
The exercise above is to show you all the immense potential of MMED’s drug portfolio. Do I think MMED is the next Pfizer, Abbie Vie or Eli Lilly? No. This is not a $500bn dollar company. However, I do genuinely think there is tremendous upside not factored into the pricing for this stock.
Fundamental analysis aside, I think the simplest way to approach valuation is from a catalyst + efficient market hypothesis perspective. Markets are not fully efficient, nor even semi-efficient, but there is some sort of reasoning in believing what the market is willing to pay. The obvious flaws in this are that the market right is riddled with irrational investors and a market of 300m financially illiterate traders isn’t more efficient than an illiquid market of 10 rational ones. As of today’s post there is a discount to the $4.40 price. To me, that’s just more opportunity to continue to scoop up more shares.
I have stayed out of the industry in the early days because truthfully I did not know which stocks to pick. Since then, much smarter people than me have done their diligence and allocated their capital to the companies that they believe are winners. This is part of an efficient market hypothesis.
Sophisticated capital flowed into MMED @ 4.40 / share, with the expectation to make a profit. I also, invested in this company at $4.9/share, with the expectation to make a profit. If we establish this as a baseline, do we believe there will be more positive than negative catalysts in the next year and in the future, such that we will see accretion in the share price? Conversely, if we see negative outcomes in future catalysts, it will cause erosion in the stock valuation. Below are near term events which should have a significant impact on share price:
Project Lucy
Phase 2 readout– Q1 2021 Open IND w/ FDA for Phase 2b – Q3 2021 Project Layla
Phase 2a study– Second half of 2021 Strategic Pharma Partner Potential – Late 2021 Various
Combined MDMA LSD Phase 1 trail – Q1 2021 IV DMT Phase 1 trail – Q1 2021 First ever Phase 2a clinical trial Microdose LSD – Q3 2021 Patent filed for neutralizer technology for LSD to shortestop hallucinogenic effects Game changer for safe, regulated environment for clinical administration Given that Phase 1 studies are focused on safety, what are the odds clinically developed LSD / MDMA fails a safety test?
Given that Phase 2 studies are focused on proof of concept and method, what are the odds the clinically designed process fails the test?
Believe in the science.
Each one of these incremental catalysts derisks MMED, and will bring the valuation closer to ‘blockbuster drug’ status, albeit inches at a time. Just as the bought deal derisked this company for me to participate, achievements in clinical trials will be evidence for more investors to jump in as well. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves and guess at how large this company can get. Just think of what is the next step and do your own evaluation as to whether achieving it is realistic. Once we get through the above list, there will be more milestones to pass such as Phase 2bs and 3s. If we establish $4.40 as the baseline currently and MMED has a successful outcome in any of the previously listed catalysts, there should be a significant accretion in valuation.
There is a noticeable omission for most of you, in that I’ve left out the NASDAQ up listing, future dilutions and general capital structuring events. To me, a NASDAQ uplisting is irrelevant. This will add liquidity, although probably more volatility, but changes zero fundamentals about the stock. It should however, add more weight to the efficient market hypothesis and erase the discount I believe this stock is trading at. We’ll see some analyst coverage with price targets that will attract more investors, but the fundamentals of the stock do not change.
With respect to stock price, it is impossible to forecast this because the capital structure of this company is completely unknown. IF we can even get to revenue generation, and this becomes a $30-100bn company, how much dilution will there be from now until then to back out a share price? The point is that there is so much runway in share price accretion from now until then, that I’m not bothered with anything finance related for this company. There is potential for 50-70x accretion in the value of this company. The focus needs to be on the science. MMED has raised enough money to get though its next set of obstacles and fund operations, thus insolvency risk has fallen away for now which is really the only important financial point for early stage biotech.
Let’s take things one step at a time, believe in the science and be patient.
Cash position & Expenditures
As you can see below, the quarterly burn payroll burn rate is quite low for MMED relative to its cash position. It’s hard to discern which items under their historical expenditures are one off versus recurring, thus difficult to calculate their exact run rate. However, the huge positive here the low ratio of payroll relative to its cash.

Data table
Next up we have the projected use of proceeds from their latest raise, net of underwriter expenses. Now that the Over-Allotment has been exercised, MMED has additional capital that it has further allocated to Albert, Lucy, Layla and the Microdose LSD program.
Proceeds Table
General takeaway is that MMED is well enough capitalized to get through its next phase of milestones. I will be keeping an eye on news surrounding the Microdose LSD program. Estimates at this stage for Phase 2a are $3-4m and the results of which will inform capital expenditures required for future phases. A positive milestone in Q3 ’21 should be an incredibly positive catalyst for this company.
Proving that you’ve raised capital and have enough cashflow to get to the next step doesn’t guarantee we’ve picked the winner in the industry. It does however give me confidence that MMED will continue to be a going concern for at least the short term and get to a point when new investors can come in at a much higher valuation. This is a real risk for the penny stocks out there without capital or IP, and that is the reason I chose MMED.
Edit: Did some re-formatting to make it easier to read cause it's pretty lengthy and there's a lot of details. Hopefully it helps.
Edit #2: I went back into the trash compacter and salvaged the original data and charts since some people were asking. The resolution may be questionable, so apologies for that, you might have to zoom in.

Is Tanking Worth It? A Study on The Correlation Between Lottery Picks and the NBA Finals Over the Past Two Decades

Hello fellow basketball fans and those of you who claim to be basketball fans. I have decided to do a project with the intent of finding empirical evidence to determine the degree in which tanking (attaining lottery picks) leads to success (reaching the NBA finals). If this seems extremely extra and motivated, that’s because it is. I am sick and tired of seeing spoiled/know-it-all fans of well-run organizations (this is pointed) whine about how they’d rather lose to get a high draft pick as opposed to win and attempt to maintain a culture of competence and consistency. Because I am petty I have put together this project and I will let the data do the talking because I am not even sure I can directly quantify what it is exactly what I am measuring, however, I will put a conclusion at the end to summarize my findings and create some sort of logical roadmap to the best of my abilities.
Before we get going I need to mention that I originally intended to measure the past 20 finals but I ended up doing the past 21 because I forgot that ‘00’ counts as a year when I started this and I only realized that was the case when I was working on the ‘Nerd Section’ so it is what it is.
_____
For this section of the project I have done the following research:

Found the finals match-ups of the past 21 years and looked to see if either of those teams had been in the lottery 5 or fewer years prior to their finals appearance
Listed the lottery picks that were healthy contributors in the finals for the respective teams over the past two decades (along with detailing how they got on their team in certain cases)

_
L5Y = Was the team in the lottery 5 or fewer years prior to their finals appearance?
Bolded name = Indicates this player was drafted in the lottery by the finals team that their name is listed with
_____
Part 1: NBA Finals Match-ups Over the Past 21 Years
__
2000: Lakers v. Pacers = Lakers W (4-2)
Lakers Lottery Picks: Shaq (1st by the Magic in 1992), Kobe (13th by Charlotte in 1996), Glen Rice (4th by Miami in 1989), and Ron Harper (8th by Cleveland in 1986)
Pacers Lottery Picks: Reggie Miller (11th in 1987 by Pacers), Jalen Rose (13th in 1994 by Denver), Dale Davis (13th 1991 by Pacers), and Rik Smits (2nd overall in 1988 by Pacers)
Lakers L5Y = Yes* (traded up to get Kobe at 13 in the 1996 draft but their record in ‘95 was 53-29)
Pacers L5Y = Yes (‘96 & ‘97 but only their 12th overall pick in ‘97 - Austin Croshere - came off then bench and played in these finals)
__
2001: Lakers v. 76ers = Lakers W (4-1)
Lakers Lottery Picks: Shaq, Kobe, Horace Grant (10th by the Bulls in 1987), and I feel like I have to say Robert Horry (11th by Houston in 1992) because he played about as many minutes off the bench as Grant did starting
76ers Lottery Picks: Allen Iverson (1st in 1996 by 76ers), Dikembe Mutumbo (4th by Denver in 1991), and Tyrone Hill (11th in 1990 by Golden State)
Lakers L5Y = Yes* (see last finals)
76ers L5Y = Yes (‘96 they got Iverson 1st overall / however their ‘97 and ‘98 draft picks - Keith Van Horne - who they traded for Tim Thomas that same draft - and Larry Hughes were not on the roster for these finals)
__
2002: Lakers v. Nets = Lakers W (4-0)
Lakers Lottery Picks: Shaq, Kobe, Horry
Nets Lottery Picks: Jason Kidd (2nd by Dallas in 1994), Kenyon Martin (1st by Nets in 2000), Keith Van Horne (2nd by 76ers in 1997 - traded to NJ immediately), and Kerry Kittles (8th by the Nets in 1996)
Lakers L5Y = No
Nets L5Y = Yes (‘97 they swapped their pick for Van Horne as part of a trade / ‘00 they drafted Kenyon Martin / ‘01 they drafted Eddie Griffin but he wasn’t on the roster for these finals - he was a part of a deal to get Richard Jefferson in that draft but Jefferson was very young at this point and came off the bench in the finals)
__
2003: Spurs v. Nets = Spurs W (4-2)
Spurs Lottery Picks: Tim Duncan (1st by San Antonio in 1997) and David Robinson (1st overall by San Antonio in 1987)
Nets Lottery Picks: Jason Kidd, Kenyon Martin, Kerry Kittles, and Richard Jefferson (13th by Houston - immediately traded to the Nets and aforementioned Eddie Griffin was a part of that package - in 2001)
Spurs L5Y = No
Nets L5Y = Yes (see details on their lottery picks in ‘00 and ‘01 above)
__
2004: Lakers v. Pistons = Pistons W (4-1)
Pistons Lottery Picks: Rip Hamilton (7th by Washington in 1999), Chauncey Billups (3rd by Boston in 1997), and Rasheed Wallace (4th by Washington in 1995)
Lakers Lottery Picks: Shaq, Kobe, Karl ‘Allegations’ Malone (13th in 1985 by Utah), and Gary Payton (2nd in 1990 by the Supersonics)
Pistons L5Y = Yes (‘00 they selected Mateen Cleaves 14th / ‘01 they selected Rodney White / in ‘03 they selected Darko / worth noting that Darko barely touched the court in these finals and the other two were not on the roster)
Lakers L5Y = No
__
2005: Spurs v. Pistons = Spurs W (4-3)
Spurs Lottery Picks: Tim Duncan and another ‘Horry plays as much as a starter but he comes off the bench’ series
Pistons Lottery Picks: Billups, Hamilton, and Wallace
Spurs L5Y = No
Pistons L5Y = Yes (see details in previous finals matchup)
__
2006: Mavericks v. Heat = Heat W (4-2)
Mavs Lottery Picks: Dirk (9th by Milwaukee in 1998 - traded immediately to Dallas), Jason Terry (10th by Atlanta in 1999), Jerry Stackhouse (3rd by the 76ers in 1995)*, and Erick Dampier (10th by the Pacers in 1996)*
Heat Lottery Picks: Dwayne Wade (5th by Miami in ‘03), Antoine Walker (6th by Boston in 1996), Shaq, and Jason Williams (7th by the Kings in 1998)
Mavs L5Y = No
Heat L5Y = Yes (‘02 they selected Caron Butler who wasn’t even on the finals roster / ‘03 they drafted Flash 5th overall and I need not qualify his impact in a mere sentence)
*Both Jerry and Erick played way more than another lottery pick by the name of Desagana Diop so I felt they were both far more qualified for the list than ‘Double D’
__
2007: Spurs v. Cavs = Spurs W (4-0)
Spurs Lottery Picks: Tim Duncan and the inevitable Robert Horry (not as many minutes as previous finals but still a good chunk)
Cavs Lottery Picks: LeBron (1st by Cleveland in ‘03), Drew Gooden (4th by Memphis in 2002), and Larry Hughes (8th by 76ers in 1998)
Spurs L5Y = No
Cavs L5Y = Yes (‘02 they drafted Dajuan Wagner 6th and he wasn’t on this finals roster / ‘03 LeBron / ‘04 Luke Jackson at 10th - also not on this finals roster)
__
2008: Lakers v. Celtics = Celtics W (4-2)
Lakers Lottery Picks: Kobe, Pau Gasol (3rd by Atlanta - immediately traded to Memphis - in 2001), Lamar Odom (4th by the Clippers in 1999), and Vladimir Radmanović (12th by the Supersonics in 2001)
Celtics Lottery Picks: Ray Allen (drafted 5th by Milwaukee in 1996), KG (drafted 5th by the T-wolves in 1995), and Paul Pierce (drafted 10th by the Celtics in 1998)
Lakers L5Y = Yes (2005 they drafted Andrew Bynum 10th overall but he was not on this finals roster)
Celtics L5Y = Yes (2004 they drafted Al Jefferson and in ‘06 they drafted Randy Foye - neither were on this finals roster / took they legendary Jeff Green in 2005 and he also wasn’t on the team)
__
2009: Magic v. Lakers = Laker W (4-1)
Magic Lottery Picks: Dwight Howard (1st overall in 2004 by the Magic) and Mickaël Piétrus (11th by Golden State in ‘03)
Lakers Lottery Picks: Kobe, Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and **Andrew Bynum (**was on this roster but he was a bench guy)
Magic L5Y = Yes (Howard in 2004 / they took Fran Vázquez 11th in 2005 - never played in the NBA - and JJ Reddick 11th in 2006 - JJ was a bench lad)
Lakers L5Y = Yes (see details in previously listed finals above)
__
2010: Lakers v. Celtics = Lakers W (4-3)
Lakers Lottery Picks: Kobe, Paul Gasol, Andrew Bynum, and Lamar Odom (not as big of a contributor as he was last time)
Celtics Lottery Picks: Paul Pierce, KG, and Ray Allen
Lakers L5Y = Yes (Andrew Bynum)
Celtics L5Y = Yes (see details listed in 2008 matchup)
__
2011: Mavs v. Heat = Mavs W (4-2)
Mavs Lottery Picks: Dirk, Jason Kidd, Shawn Marion (9th by Phoenix in 1999), Tyson Chandler (2nd by the Clippers - traded to the Bulls immediately - in 2001), and Jason Terry (played considerable minutes off the bench)
Heat Lottery Picks: LeBron, Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh (4th by the Raptors in 2003), and a dash of Mike Bibby (2nd by Vancouver in 1998)
Mavs L5Y = No
Heat L5Y = Yes (2008 they took Michael Beasley 2nd overall but he was not on this finals roster)
__
2012: Thunder v. Heat = Heat W (4-1)
Thunder Lottery Picks: KD (2nd by the Supersonics in 2007), Russ (4th in 2008 by the Thunder), Thabo Sefolosha (13th by the 76ers in 2006), and a few appearances off the bench some guy named James Harden (3rd by the Thunder in 2009)
Heat Lottery Picks: LeBron, Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh, and Shane Battier (6th by Memphis in 2001)
Thunder L5Y = Yes (in the three drafts from 2007-2009 they drafted KD 2nd, Russ 4th, and Harden 3rd in respective years)
Heat L5Y = Yes (see details in previously listed finals above)
__
2013: Spurs v. Heat = Heat W (4-3)
Spurs Lottery Picks: Tim Duncan
Heat Lottery Picks: LeBron, Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh, and Ray Allen (came off the bench but arguably may have hit an important shot or two)
Spurs L5Y = No
Heat L5Y = Yes (see details listed in previous finals above)
__
2014: Spurs v. Heat = Spurs W (4-1)
Spurs Lottery Picks: Tim Duncan
Heat Lottery Picks: LeBron, Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh, and Ray Allen
Spurs L5Y: No
Heat L5Y: No
__
2015: Warriors v. Cavs = Warriors W (4-2)
Warriors Lottery Picks: Wardell Curry II (7th by Golden State in 2009), Harrison Barnes (7th by Golden State in 2012), Klay (11th by Golden State in 2011), Andrew Bogut (1st by Milwaukee in 2005), and considerable minutes from Igoudala (9th by 76ers in 2004)
Cavs Lottery Picks: LeBron\, *Tristan Thompson** (4th in 2011 by the Cavs), Kyrie (1st by the Cavs in 2011 - went out in game 1)
Warriors L5Y = Yes (2010 they took Ekpe Odoh - wasn’t on this finals roster / 2011 they got Klay 11th and in 2012 they got Harrison Barnes 7th)
Cavs L5Y = Yes (2001 they drafted Kyrie 1st and Thompson 4th / 2012 they drafted Dion Waiters - wasn’t on this finals roster / 2013 they took Anthony Bennet 1st overall - need I say more / 2014 they drafted Andrew Wiggins 1st overall and he was shipped off with Bennet when the Cavs decided to rob Minnesota blind)
*****came back as a free agent
__
2016: Warriors v. Cavs = Cavs W (4-3)
Warriors Lottery Picks: Steph, Klay, Harrison Barnes, Iggy, and less of a role for Andrew Bogut
Cavs Lottery Picks: LeBron\, *Kyrie, **Tristan Thompson, and Kevin Love (5th by Memphis in 2008 - immediately traded to the T-wolves)
Warriors L5Y = Yes (see details in previously listed finals above)
Cavs L5Y = Yes (see details in previously listed finals above)
*****came back as a free agent
__
2017: Warriors v. Cavs = Warriors W (4-1)
Warriors Lottery Picks: KD, Steph, Klay, and Iggy
Cavs Lottery Picks: LeBron\, *Kyrie, **Tristan Thompson, Kevin Love, and an elderly Richard Jefferson
Warriors L5Y = Yes (see details in previously listed finals above)
Cavs L5Y = Yes (see details in previously listed finals above)
*****came back as a free agent
__
2018: Warriors v. Cavs = Warriors W (4-0)
Warriors Lottery Picks: Steph, Klay, and KD
Cavs Lottery Picks: LeBron\, *Tristan Thompson**, Kevin Love, and noticeable minutes from Jeff Green
Warriors L5Y = No
Cavs L5Y = Yes (see details in previously listed finals above)
*****came back as a free agent
__
2019: Warriors v. Raptors = Raptors W (4-2)
Warriors Lottery Picks: Steph, Klay (went out in game 5), and Iggy
Raptors Lottery Picks:
Warriors L5Y = No
Raptors L5Y = Yes (2016 they took Jakob Poeltl 9th - later traded as part of a package with the beloved Demar Derozan for Mr. Leonard)
__
2020: Lakers v. Heat = Lakers W (4-2)
Lakers Lottery Picks: LeBron James, Anthony Davis (1st by New Orleans in 2012), Kentavious Caldewell-Pope (8th by the Pistons in 2013), along with minutes sprinkled from former lottery picks Dwight Howard and Markieff Morris (13th by Phoenix in 2011)
Heat Lottery Picks: Bam Adebayo (14th overall in 2017) and Tyler Herro (13th overall in 2019)
Lakers L5Y = Yes (2015 they took D’Angelo Russel 2nd overall - wasn’t on this finals roster / 2016 they took Brandon Ingram 2nd overall, 2017 they took Lonzo Ball 2nd overall, and in 2019 they ‘drafted’ De’Andre Hunter 4th overall- they were all a part of a trade package to acquire Anothony Davis)
Heat L5Y = Yes (In 2015 they took Justise Winslow 10th overall - he wasn’t on this finals roster / Bam 14th in 2017 and Herro 13th in 2019)
__
TLDR Tidbits:

Over the past 21 finals there was ONE team that won a championship WITHOUT (thank you u/lalo1398 for the correction) having a single lottery pick on their finals roster and that was the 2019 Toronto Raptors (imagine if he had stayed >:( - Mr. Leonard I miss you)

Top 3 Champions Past 21 Seasons: Lakers (6) - Spurs (4) - Warriors/Heat (3)

Top 3 Finalists Past 21 Seasons: Lakers (8 / 6-2) - Heat (6 / 3-3) - Warriors (5 / 3-2) & Spurs (5 / 4-1)

L5Y Teams That Appeared in The Finals: 30 of the past 42 finalists (~71%) were in the lottery 5 or fewer years prior to appearing in the NBA finals

L5Y Teams That Won The Finals: 14 of the past 21 (two thirds - 2/3) NBA champions were in the lottery 5 or fewer years prior to winning the championship

Top 3 (picks wise) Most Lottery Appearances: Magic, T-wolves, and Clippers (18 picks each / 1 combined finals appearance) - 76ers, Hornets, Bucks, and Kings (17 picks each / 1 combined finals appearance) - Suns, Warriors, and Cavs (16 picks / 10 combined finals appearances - 4 wins)

Over the past 25 years 10 teams had a combined 170 lottery picks and managed to reach a combined 12 NBA finals (10 of which can be accounted for by two teams - Warriors and Cavs) while winning a total of 4 championships

Top 3 (picks wise) Least Lottery Appearances: Spurs (1 pick / 5 finals appearances) - Lakers (6 picks / 8 finals appearances) - Heat (7 picks / 6 finals appearances)

Over the past 25 years 3 teams had a combined 14 lottery picks and managed to reach a combined 19 NBA finals while winning a total of 13 championships.

Teams to win without having homegrown lottery picks as healthy contributors on their finals roster over the last 21 NBA finals: 2004 Pistons, 2019 Raptors, and 2020 Lakers

Homegrown Finalists and Their Records: Kobe (7 / 5-2) - Tim Duncan (5 / 4-1) - Dwyane Wade, Stephen Curry, Klay (5 / 3-2) - LeBron* (5 / 1-4) - Tristan Thompson (4 / 1-3) - Kyrie (3 / 1-2) - Andrew Bynum (2-0) - Dirk, Paul Pierce, and Harrison Barnes (2 / 1-1) - Jason Kidd, Kenyon Martin and Kerry Kittles, (2 / 0-2) - David Robinson (1 / 1-0) - Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, Dale Davis, Allen Iverson, Keith Van Horne, Richard Jefferson, James Harden, Russell Westbrook, KD*, Bam Adebayo, Tyler Herro, and Dwight Howard*, (1 / 0-1)

*has played in one or more finals for a team different from the one that drafted them
___
Nerd Section:
Getting ‘The Guy’:

Over the past 21 seasons a total of 29 different players that have been drafted in the lottery by an NBA team had at least one finals appearance with that team. For the purpose of this project I tracked the draft lottery starting from 1995 onwards, so to calculate the odds of any given team landing one of these players I did - 25 (number of drafts from ‘95-’19) multiplied by 15 (the number of players that are in the lottery) and divided 29 (the number of players with at least one finals appearance) by that number (375) and multiplied it by 100 to give me the percentage chance of landing one of these players and it came out to > ~8%.

Equation > 25 x 15 = 375 / 29 ÷ 375 = 0.077 / 0.077 x 100 = roughly 8%

Now, since I did not find every single transaction regarding every finals team and their lottery picks I cannot say that 8% number is of huge significance because as we know lottery picks/players can be pretty valuable assets in trades and such so measuring the value of a lottery pick goes well beyond just figuring out which lottery pick happened to make a finals appearance with the team that drafted them.

However, I do believe that number does provide decent value in a different context as it clearly speaks to how rare it is for a team to be able to find their ‘guy’ in the lottery and have them take the franchise to the promised land (very far from a guarantee). I am aware that most (if not all) of the lottery picks from 2016 onwards have not had ample time to prove themselves but even if you were to remove them from the sample size it would make the total number of players drafted 315 and take the number of different lottery players to appear in a finals with their team down to 27. By repeating the same process but replacing the numbers (315 instead of 375 and 27 instead of 29) the percentage only changes (goes up) by 0.8% points which reaffirms the idea that finding ‘the guy’ is far from easy.

With that being said, that’s 8% of making the finals, not even winning. Of those 29 players only 13 (Kobe, Andrew Bynum, Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Paul Pierce, Dirk, Dwayne Wade, Steph, Klay, Harrison Barnes, Kyrie, Tristan Thompson, and LeBron after he returned to Cleveland) won at least one or more championships for their franchise and if you were to account for the fact that certain guys played for the same team then that number gets down to 7* (this means that of the past 21 finals winners only 7 had some combination of their own lottery picks starting for them). For the sake of simplicity I will keep the number at 13 and divide it by 375 (13 out of 375 players drafted in the lottery won one or more championships for the franchise they were drafted to) which comes out to ~3.5%.

*may not have been explained clearly enough but the number 7 represents the total number of teams that had their lottery pick(s) win at least one or more championships with them - there were 13 different players selected with 13 different lottery picks but those 13 picks were spread across just 7 different teams

The Indisputable Value of ‘The Guy’

Going off that number I feel like it is important to note that although only ~3.5% of players drafted in the lottery over the past 25 seasons have won a finals for the franchise they were drafted to, 18 of the past 21 finals winners have featured one of these such players on the team, which means a whopping ~86% of finals winners over the past 21 seasons had one of these homegrown lottery talents on their team. To me this is arguably the most important statistic I’ve found so far while doing the research for this project because that’s pretty clearly where the genesis of the ‘pro-tanking’ argument comes from.

As we know, there are a ton of different variables that go into any given team winning an NBA championship and (as has been shown time and time again) having talent is not the end all be all. However, the fact that ~86% of finals winners had a homegrown lottery talent on their roster is fairly significant and if we change the criteria from finals winner to finals participant than the percentage of teams over the past 21 seasons that have participated in at least one or more finals with a homegrown talent is ~90% (38 of the 42 teams to appear in the last 21 NBA finals had one of these players - the Pistons appeared twice without one, along with the Raptors and Lakers each appearing in one respectively)

___
Conclusion:
Look, do I think this data tells the full story? HEAVENS NO. But does it tell A story? Yes it does. At the end of the day, sports are hard. Building a winner is hard. Building a SUSTAINED winner is even harder. I believe this project has shown just how truly difficult it is to win the NBA draft lottery and end up with a player capable of helping your team make their way to the promised land. Having a lottery pick pan out the way they’re projected to is far from a guarantee and the odds that your team is going to land that player in the ~3.5% is obviously incredibly low. With that being said, I get it. I understand those of you that think losing is better than winning in certain instances because you feel as if it gives your team a chance at landing one of these guys but I hope now you can at least see how really truly ridiculously fortunate you have to be to end up with one of these dudes. The fact that a combination of 10 different teams with a combined 170 picks over the past 25 years managed to win 1/3 of the championships that 3 teams who had almost as many championships as they had lottery picks over the exact same span of time should say something to you.
Are the Lakers, Spurs, and Heat lucky? Yes, you need to be lucky to be good. However, the Lakers traded for Kobe at the back end of the lottery, the Spurs only needed one lottery pick total over the past 25 seasons to be successful, and Miami… ok Miami was fortunate to land LeBron and Bosh in the same offseason (to be fair they did win one with Wade prior to this) but the reason they were able to sign LeBron and Bosh should not be understated. All three of these teams have proven to maintain at least three things for an extended period of time; solid coaching, solid front office, and a competitive (winning) environment. So at this point in time, if your team is operating on all three of these levels with an average to above average level of competence you should appreciate it and understand that the chips will eventually fall in your favor if they continue to do so. I don’t have time to talk about ‘treadmill teams’ but I can assure you in virtually every single case they are not operating effectively on at least one of the levels I described.
As I conclude my research on this topic I’d like to summarize this it in one message that a good chunk of you likely grasped well before ever seeing this project. When it comes to the lottery, the success rates of teams spanning over the past quarter century clearly show that your team probably won’t win the big money just because they have a ticket in their hand… but boy can it be fun when that thang cashes out. So with all that being said - Raptors fans and those in similar situations - if you take a look around, I think you’ll be able to see that we’re going to be alright.
Thank you for reading.
_____
Source: https://www.basketball-reference.com
Corrections:
I have been rightly corrected and now know the lottery is only the first 14 teams and not the first 15 / with that being said I know that doesn't make a huge difference in a data set this large because I'd be removing only ~6% of the total picks made over the past 25 years (based off of my original criteria for what a 'lottery team' was) and that doesn't change the main message of this project
I also had to remove Mr. Leonard’s name where it was previously listed in certain instances due to the correction (twice with the Spurs and once with the Raptors)
Jason Kidd stans I have repented and corrected thank you for noticing

Gamestop Big Picture: Theory, Strategy, Reality

Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. This entire post represents my personal views and opinions, and should not be taken as financial advice (or advice of any kind whatsoever). I encourage you to do your own research, take anything I write with a grain of salt, and hold me accountable for any mistakes you may catch. Also, full disclosure, I hold a net long position in GME, but my cost basis is very low, and I'm using money I can absolutely lose. My capital at risk and tolerance for risk generally is likely substantially different than yours.
Note: If you have insightful/challenging comments, please consider putting them on the main post as soon as it get approve (assuming it gets approved) on investing*.*
Before I get into Monday's action, a couple of things:
I wanted to first give a shout out to piddlesthethug for capturing this screenshot, which shows that moment in time I referenced in my third Gamestop post, where some poor soul got sniped while sweeping the 29 January 115 calls. I added it into the post with an edit, but my guess is most who read the post a while back would have missed it. I guess my mental math in the moment was off as you can see from the image that the cost was actually just shy of $500k rather than $440k as I wrote in the post. Brutal.
People have also asked me where I stand on this trade. I was lucky to get in early, trade some momentum, and retain a sizeable core holding (relative to my play account). As I've mentioned some comments, my core holding, which I will hold until this saga plays itself out, would buy me a new car, all cash. Though after today I'd have to downgrade from a lower end Lexus to a Corolla lol.
Alright, so, today's action.
I have to admit that I was just glancing at the chart between writing emails, working on excel spreadsheets, conference calls, and meetings. Whenever I could, I was listening to CNBC in the background, and taking a closer look whenever I heard anything that might move sentiment, or theoretically telegraph an attack as had happened so many times last week.
In my opinion the price action played out almost by-the-numbers according to a squeeze campaign strategy as I laid out in my previous post. I want to be clear, however, that while it was consistent with what I laid out (liquidity drying up, trying to skirmish at lower and lower price points), you could reasonably interpret it other ways. As I mentioned in at least one comment, seeing things play out in a manner consistent with your expectations is by no means positive confirmation that your thesis is correct. It just happens to be consistent with the evidence you have so far. Always keep that in mind.
I tried responding to a few comments and questions in realtime as I got notifications on my phone. Just as a heads up, I won't always be able to do so, and it seems like there were a number of knowledgeable people commenting in realtime anyway. As I've said in comments on my previous posts, I am definitely not the smartest person in the room, so don't just take my word for it just because I'm the original poster. Please challenge anything I say if you feel I'm mistaken, and don't dismiss out of hand people who may have a different viewpoint.
One thing I thought I noticed in early morning market hours action was that there was no sell order depth above the ticker price, which I interpret as a good sign. Downward pushes into fairly good volume got sucked back up largely in a low-volume vacuum. The most extreme example of this was the first push right at market open. Tons of volume to push the price down, then a tiny fraction of volume as price got sucked back up. This means very little continued panicking and bailing due to the aggressive push, resulting in gaps to the upside on the follow-on buying. There were messages and comments from people concerned that low price would let the short side cover, but, as I explained, low price doesn't help the short side unless they can buy at that low price in meaningful volume. That sort of action where price gaps up as soon as buying (whether by shorts or longs) is driving price tells you that there isn't much meaningful volume to be had at the lower prices. From a higher level view, volume through the day dropped as price dropped, and that seems to have remained consistently true throughout the day.
There was some very strange after-market volume. No idea what that may have been, other than maybe hedge unwinding as T+2 contract settlement outcomes were determined. It seemed, at least to me, to be too much volume in too dense a time window to be retailers bailing out of their accounts en mass. It would make no sense to do so into the vacuum of after hours anyway rather than the firmer price support of market hours.
I got messages that I was both a short side hedge fund shill and a long side pump and dump fraudster trying to somehow take peoples' money. My sentiment analysis KPIs thus indicate I'm likely striking a healthy balance (lol).

The Game (Theory)

Power

Faith, Conviction, Calculated Risk

Swimming In The Deep

BREAKING NEWS: All mcc stats are complete wrong

Mystery Boxes suck now

How Mortar Accuracy Works, Mortar Mechanics, Shell Effects & Usage Tips and Safe Antigrain Storage

TLDR at bottom. Version 1.2.2753

Forced Miss Radius, or why you never hit your target.

This is what you see when your mortar targets something.

This is what your mortar sees when targeting something. It is EQUALLY LIKELY to hit ANY of these hundreds of tiles.
Standard ranged weapons make checks based on the weapon's accuracy, the shooter, and other things such as cover to see if their attack hits the target, and if that check passes the projectile tries to home in on the target. Mortars are NOT standard, and don't care about ANY of the above.
Despite being a structure like turrets, mortars follow the same rules as grenades and are Forced Miss Radius (FMR) weapons, which essentially is a fancy way of saying 'AoE'. All FMR weapons only care about two things: the target square and the weapon's miss radius.
The way the Forced Miss Radius works is pretty simple: in effect, it means intentionally failing the accuracy check. And to explain this, I'm going to use grenades.

Miss Radius and Direct Hit Chance are all that matter here.
When thrown, grenades don't hit a square as much as they hit an 'area'. The grenade itself can land in anywhere around the target location, up to 1.9 squares away (the miss radius). Effectively, they have a 2 square radius around where you're trying to hit. There are 9 highlighted tiles and those are all the tiles the grenade can land on, and that's how the direct hit chance of 11% is calculated. The odds of hitting the middle are just 1/9 because nothing makes it more or less likely to hit the targeted square. The shooter doesn't matter, it's all about random chance. And despite not showing you this visually, mortars work the exact same way.

\"0.19% hit chance????\"
Mortars have a 13 tile miss radius around the target, which is about equal to the range of a Rimworld shotgun. What your mortar saw up above is every possible square within the miss radius, which ends up being 517 tiles. The direct hit chance, or chance to hit Nihlus' tile, is literally just 1/517, which ends up being 0.19342%. This is why mortars NEVER seem to hit anywhere near the actual target; the odds of selecting a tile anywhere near the center is incredibly low. Mortar material does nothing to change this.

Mortar Mechanics and Variants

All mortars take 28 seconds to arm a shot. After the mortar is armed, it takes 4 seconds to fire the shot, after which the pawn will go and get another shell to fire again. Once the mortar is reloaded, the process repeats. Pawns that are Incapable of Violence cannot man mortars.
While there are five mortar variants, the only real differences are flammability and HP. Material does impact market price, work cost, and beauty, but the work to build a mortar is pretty negligble to begin with and the other values have no combat utility.

Steel is the easiest to make materialswise and is a middle-of-the-road option. 180 HP isn't excellent since mortars explode if damaged under 20% of their health and a single explosion can easily do that much (and cause a chain reaction), and 40% flammability means they aren't immune to fire. Still, steel's easy to get early on and the mortar is just durable enough to survive a few raider gunshots or clubbings without exploding.
Gold has merely 108 HP and 28% flammability. Use your gold elsewhere.
Silver has 126 HP and 28% flammability. Again, a poor investment.
Uranium has 450 HP for 2.5x the durability of steel and has 0% flammability, making it immune to fire. Second best to plasteel, considering both the difficulty of getting uranium and lower stats. Probably the best usage of spare uranium besides maces, though.
Plasteel has 505 HP for slightly over 2.8x the health of steel and again has 0% flammability. 75 plasteel isn't that hard to get and is a great use for it earlygame if a making a quality weapon for a melee pawn isn't possible or viable.

While all mortars only have a .19% chance to hit the center tile, this is not the effective accuracy of the mortar shell because mortars shells (just like grenades) have an AoE effect with a varying radius depending on what shell you use.

Mortar Shells

Area of Effect for all 6 Mortar Shells (mortar target radius included for reference) for center hit.
All shells have a radius on their effect, and as a result there's a massive difference in consistency between them all. Each ring represents the radius for a shell's effect if the mortar aimed at the center, and the shell of the respective type landing on any of those squares also hits the center (so if a firefoam shell landed on any gold squares it would also hit the center tile with the AoE), meaning their odds to hit vary from exceedingly unlikely to guaranteed barring structures / terrain blocking the blast. Here's the stats for all the shell variants:

HE

HE / High Explosive shells are pretty straightforward: there's a big explosion in a 3-tile radius around the hit square (or a 5x5 centered on the hit square, if that's easier to visualize). They're also the shell 99% of people use when they try to use mortars to take something out and then complain about mortars being bad.
The issue with HE shells is that multiple things are subpar. Only 25 tiles of the total 517 will actually impact the center, meaning each shell only has a 4.8356% chance to hit. Even on larger structures (enemy mortars, ship parts) the effective likelihood of hitting is only going to be about a 1/20, and that's for a single hit. Even on a direct hit, only 200 damage is done to a structure, meaning you need 6 hits to actually destroy a ship part. Even an Auto Mortar takes two (though a regular steel mortar and all mech cluster turrets only need a single hit).
In terms of combat, a moving target means even poorer accuracy and even unarmored pawns will generally tank a single hit without being downed / dying immediately, to say nothing of the natural tankiness of mechs and insectoids.
The final issue is they're just not cost-efficient. If your problem takes 40 shells, that's 1k steel and 600 chemfuel. 10 large excellent steel sculptures and that 600 chemfuel is going to be worth about 5,800 silver. Sending all of that by pod is enough to generate +76 relations, which means you could immediately hit ally with a civil outlander group and just call in aid OR straight up make any non-pirate faction neutral. Even just spending all that on gold at full value no discount gets you about 6.214 honor worth of gold, which is only about 2000 silver off from buying an aerodrone salvo and having SIX 6-square radius shells falling right on your target, which is about twice as many times you'd expect to hit your target if you just fired 60 shells and with twice the radius / 4.36x the exploded tiles per shot. Buying that much is actually cheaper than 60 shells, too...
That all being said, they're the only real consistent way to safely deal damage across the entire map. When you've hit endgame, have a dozen or two mortars, and the cost isn't a big deal, nothing can really do the same job of chipping away a couple dozen pawns consistently each raid regardless of what faction they are and where they're coming from as firing a dozen or two shells at a time.

Incendiary

Incendiary shells "explode" in a small 3-tile radius that inflicts small burns on anyone hit and and spreads several (number seems to vary) burning chemfuel puddles around the impact site as well as inflicting a very small amount of structure damage if the target was a wall (and lighting several segments on fire if said walled area is flammable). Said puddles burn for several seconds and spread fires. While they have the same abysmal 3-tile radius as HE shells and on paper only have a ~5% chance to hit, fire mechanics as a whole help out tremendously with consistency here and make them excellent area denial.
Fire can spread to any flammable material within a 3 square radius, effectively doubling the radius an incendiary shell has an effect on and meaning on average a significantly higher likelihood of catching something important on fire and causing massive spread.
Incendiary shells are phenomenal for sieges because fire will destroy any mortars being built almost instantly, PERMANENTLY taking them out. This doesn't even need a direct hit to the mortars being worked on: hits to supplies or any single raider themselves seem to aggro the raid into attacking, immediately abandoning any mortars being built and deconstructing them. This turns a dicey situation into a regular raid plus several hundred free steel and whatever else doesn't burn before you clean up. Do note that mechs and all mech cluster turrets & buildings are fireproof, though. Unless you specifically want to burn the steel walls and barricades on a cluster, avoid using incendiary shells there.

Firefoam

Firefoam shells literally behave as a launched firefoam popper. However, they're also significantly cheaper, only costing 35 steel per shell, compared to the 75 steel / 1 component that a popper costs.
Contrary to the wiki, firefoam doesn't slow pawns as of 1.2.2753. nor does the explosion appear to disable shields. Mechanically it's pretty basic, it acts much like filth (and doesn't disappear unless cleaned / rain washes it away) but prevents fire from being on the tiles that it's on (though pawns themselves can still catch fire. This doesn't make you immune to inferno cannons!). As an explosion, it will also extinguish any structures nearby. Note that a structure being on or adjacent to firefoam doesn't matter; your walls and table CAN catch fire again despite firefoam being out. This means it can slow down spread, but can't stop walls or furniture from being reignited. This WILL prevent trees and grasses from igniting, though.
Despite a mortar-fired firefoam shell explosion actually being smaller than a popped firefoam popper (which has an effect radius of 14, compared to something like 6 for the mortar projectile), the shells themselves (not loaded) have an explosion size equal to a firefoam popper. Since fire will ignite them all the same, they can actually be used as a cheaper and beauty-neutral way to fireproof your home and stockpiles compared to poppers. That being said, an 85 tile coverage on the mortar shell means you have a 16.44% chance of foaming what you want to, which isn't bad since odds are any shot will significantly impede / slow down a raging fire.

Smoke

Smoke shells make a massive cloud of smoke appear over the target area. Smoke lasts only about 20 seconds but does two important things: shooting through it reduces accuracy by 70% and turrets will not fire if any amount of smoke is between them and their target. A wild bullet is still dangerous and can be intercepted by friendlies even if it "misses", however.
Smoke is particularly amazing for mech clusters and for making safe retreats. Nothing in the game generates a smoke cloud this large, and 161 tiles of coverage means you have about a 1/3 (31.14%) of impacting the center tile, which isn't even necessary for smoke to do its job. One shot between you and the turrets is all you need to get a smoke launcher pawn safely in to lock a cluster down, lob a few grenades, or bait out mechs, taking out a big problem for only 35 steel.

EMP

EMP shells are pretty self explanatory: they make a massive EMP blast centered on the hit tile. A titanic area coverage of 241 tiles gives a ~46.6% chance of hitting the target square, or about a 71.5% chance of hitting the target with two shells.
EMP mechanics are simple but varied: everything remotely electronic gets shorted out, but each object / unit have their own mechanics with how they deal with it and are stunned with different durations. Here's the crash course:

Mortars, auto mortars, mini-turrets, auto-cannon turrets, uranium slug turrets, and all mech cluster turrets get stunned for 25 seconds upon EMP'd and cannot fire. Mechs ALSO get stunned for 25 seconds, but "adapt" to EMP effects and prevent further stuns for 36.67 seconds. Because they're still stunned, however, this effectively only gives them 11.67 seconds to act between stuns.
Cluster shields (high and low) only get stunned for 18 seconds per hit. However for high shields, being hit by the EMP shell is guaranteed due to the shield radius being larger than the mortar miss radius.
Shield belts are disabled for 53.333 seconds, pawns with nuclear, reprocessor, and detoxifier stomachs vomit, and pawns with cicardian, neurocalculator, and learning assistant impants are downed for about 57 seconds. Incapacitating pawns with EMP does NOT cause a decrease to relations as of current release, and rescuing pawns downed in this way causes them to leave the map after recovering and gives a free relations boost in addition to whatever equipment they dropped (though this only really applies to Empire pawns).

EMP shells are incredibly niche because they're only really usable for mechanoid attacks, but they're also incredibly good at countering them. If you struggle with mechs, especially clusters, give them a try.

Antigrain

Here's the nuke. Antigrain warheads have an explosion radius two tiles longer than the actual miss radius of a mortar, meaning they are guaranteed to damage the targeted tile unless walls get in the way of the blast. Antigrain can destroy walls, but the blast won't travel past them.
Antigrain will destroy just about anything. Adjacent structures will take about 2100 damage, destroying everything and everyone in the game bar compacted plasteel and uranium ore. Ship parts and EMI Dynamos (which don't actually power down mortars despite EMP hits disabling them) are destroyed outright if the warhead strikes within 9 tiles of the ship part (79.3% chance), every other condition-causer in the game will be destroyed regardless.
Being hit will atomize anyone, and even being on the fringe is almost certainly a death, but it's not guaranteed. Tough pawns also have a much better chance of surviving since they take half damage. It's almost a guaranteed down on everything that survives though, which means virtually all hostile NPCs bar the tanky centipede in the radius will die.
Their purpose and value is obvious, so let's talk about something else: storage tricks. A poorly-stored antigrain firing off can end a game, so here's a tip and two ways to keep your warhead safe but easily accessible:

Tantrums love focusing on these shells since they have a high market value of $1200. The challenge isn't just making a safe place for the shell, it's a safe place that also prevents a pawn from atomizing themselves.
Transport pods are tantrum-proof and will protect the shell from damage until the pod or pod launcher is broken. While not fireproof, this lets the shell take even a direct mortar round without suffering any damage.
Mortar shells inside a mortar don't actually explode when the mortar itself is destroyed; the mortar merely explodes with a set explosion radius and the shell is lost. This means that storing an antigrain warhead inside a mortar itself is actually one of the safest and most convenient places to put it if you're worried about the shell exploding in your base, especially if you splurge on one of the durable and fireproof mortar types.

Conclusion

Mortars are extremely expensive and have poor results when people try to use them like a win button to circumvent fighting with their pawns (without using antigrains, which are for doing exactly that). They are very effective when they're used as a support tool for your combat squad to make it easier for THEM to go out and fight, as long as you're careful and don't EMP the wrong colonist.
Despite pawns incapable of violence no longer being able to use them, pawns without combat skills still have a way to make encounters much safer for your squads with a well-placed smoke, incendiary, or EMP. Give them a try, especially firefoam shells as a substitute for poppers!
TLDR: 0.19% chance to hit target tile, shell variants impact effective accuracy.

4.84% for HE (bad)
4.84% for Incendiary (okay)
16.44% for Firefoam (use instead of poppers)
31.14% for Smoke (good)
46.62% for EMP (amazing)
100% for Antigrain (lol)

Avoid HE Shells, the rest have niches. Smoke and EMP in particular are incredible for dismantling mech clusters.

double odds calculator video

Calculators » Double Bet Calculator. Double Bet Calculator. Double Bet Calculator. Unit Stake: Odds Format: Each Way: Yes No # Selection. Odds Place Term Result Rule 4 ; 1 / $ Tied position: Places paid: Number of runners in dead heat: Bookmaker Bonuses. All Winner Bonus: % One Loser Bonus: % One Winner Bonus: Calculate. Total Stake Total Return Total Profit ... The calculator may also ask you to either enter the odds in the decimal or fraction format, but we will touch upon the key issues related to that further on in this article. You will then repeat that process however many times is necessary – for example, if you have placed multiple bets – and then may also be able to add information related to Dead Heats or any situation when Rule 4 may ... Then we simply take the odds, pop them into the calculator, and even if they are not enhanced, we place 2 separate bets to achieve the same double chance bet effect. If you are looking for quality free sports betting tips, please visit our friends at GoonersGuide.com The Double Bet Calculator allows you to calculate the stake, return and profit for Doubles, ... For example, if a selection has lost, then Win Odds is not relevant, so that option is removed from the form. Win Odds can be entered in either Fraction, Decimal or American format, in accordance with the current odds format that can be changed via the Settings. … Status Win Odds Place; 1 ... The first tool in the betting calculator is the double chance bet calculator. It calculates the proportion into which you have to divide your stake between the two separate bets so that you will have the same return in case of any of the two possible outcomes. Use the Double return calculator to work out your winnings online for all sports. Free, easy to use and mobile friendly bet calculator. Double Bet Calculator: Selection: Odds: Selection Odds 1 (fractional) / e.g. 8/1 Selection Odds 2 (fractional) / e.g. 8/1 Stake $ Total Return (profit plus stake) $ Football Tips Premier League Tips Championship Tips La Liga Tips Bundesliga Tips Ligue 1 Tips Serie A Tips Champions League Tips. Football Statistics Both Teams To Score Stats Over 2.5 Goals Stats Over 1.5 Goals Stats Corner Stats ... Our Double bet calculator will work out your returns on your winning doubles bet. It’s free and easy to use – check it out today. If you have won on your double then you’ll want to calculate your winnings so you know what to expect back from the bookies. We’ve made that easy with our free and mobile-friendly calculator. Simply add the details into the boxes below – including your ... So is doing a double worth it? Yes, as long as you can identify odds that are more likely to come home than the bookie thinks they are. We have our own system for doing this, and the results are listed in the recommendations below for Double bets. I suggest you add a few of them into the calculator and have a play to get a feel for how things work. To use the calculator, input the head-to-head odds for a fixture, along with your desired total stake. Note that this tool only applies to markets where a draw is a distinct possibility, like football/soccer. Draw No Bet and Double Chance Calculator. Selection Odds; Home Team: Draw: Away Team: Total Wager ($): Share this: Recent Posts. Saturday Racing Tips – February 6, 2021; Premier League ...

double odds calculator top

How to Use Excel to Calculate Probabilities : Advanced ...

This video demonstrates how to convert odds to probability and probability to odds using Microsoft Excel. The equation for each conversion is reviewed and us... football betting football betting strategy 777 formula smart formula soccer betting system soccer betting tips and predictions football betting documentary s... This formula will always give you a part of your money back, even if you predicted all of your games wrong ?!Look how I developed this unique way of sports b... In the Martingale strategy for a gambling game that pays 1 to 1, you start by betting 1 unit, double the amount you bet after each loss, and go back to betti... Visit http://ilectureonline.com for more math and science lectures!In this video I will calculate the odds on, and odds against in horse racing.Next video in... https://StudyForce.com https://Biology-Forums.com Ask questions here: https://Biology-Forums.com/index.php?board=33.0Follow us: Facebook: https://facebo... Probability Concepts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCiEFOHISPw&list=PLJ-ma5dJyAqoLPeUwSnxwb3nlYDrKgZet Have any questions on how to play video poker? Feel free to ask me in the comment section below! In this video, I answer some common questions I get across a... Subscribe Now:http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=EhowtechWatch More:http://www.youtube.com/EhowtechUsing Excel to calculate probabilities is... Calculating log and antilog values using scientific calculator. Explained how to calculate log value to the base of any number. Use headphone. Thanks for wa...

Double Bet Calculator Calculate Your Betting Returns ...

double odds calculator

double odds calculator - win

Doubling problem: how to exactly calculate odds?

Calculating odds on double board?

@OliverFlynn18 for some odd reason you and some other kid were coming at me because My ThUmB iSnT bEnDy I said I was double jointed and they didn't believe me. Here's your proof idiot. Yes this photo was taken by a calculator.

Ghastcoiler into a double Mecharoo drop just lost me a Battlegrounds game, can someone calculate the odds?

How to calculate the odds of winning a double-elimination tournament.

Gamestop Big Picture: Theory, Strategy, Reality

The Game (Theory)

Power

Faith, Conviction, Calculated Risk

Swimming In The Deep

Need help calculating double elimination tournament odds (hypothetical)

Marshmallow Mania and the Cult of 240F.

How to Survive Camping - old habits die hard

A SIR_JACK_A_LOT Christmas Carol - My magnum dong opus on turning $35K to $1.75M (50X) in less than a year

Introduction

Ghosts of Christmas Past

Ghosts of Christmas Present

Ghost of Christmas Future

Q&A / AMAA

"Mindmed Forecast/Fundamental Case" [BULLISH] {MMEDF}

Is Tanking Worth It? A Study on The Correlation Between Lottery Picks and the NBA Finals Over the Past Two Decades

Gamestop Big Picture: Theory, Strategy, Reality

The Game (Theory)

Power

Faith, Conviction, Calculated Risk

Swimming In The Deep

BREAKING NEWS: All mcc stats are complete wrong

Mystery Boxes suck now

How Mortar Accuracy Works, Mortar Mechanics, Shell Effects & Usage Tips and Safe Antigrain Storage

Forced Miss Radius, or why you never hit your target.

Mortar Mechanics and Variants

Mortar Shells

HE

Incendiary

Firefoam

Smoke

EMP

Antigrain

Conclusion

double odds calculator video

double odds calculator top

How to Use Excel to Calculate Probabilities : Advanced ...