4 ms·

> The people that bought GME at $300 are not likely to return for more sick gains. Unfortunately that sounds a lot like saying "The people who lose all their m

> The people that bought GME at $300 are not likely to return for more sick gains. Unfortunately that sounds a lot like saying "The people who lose all their money at the casino are not likely to return to the casino," which... well...

Bakary 6y ago
It doesn't just sound a lot like it. It is literally gambling.
- aikinai 6y ago
  Serious question, where do you draw the line between investing and gambling? The original case for GME was built on solid fundamentals and I’d say not really gambling even though you were going up against hedge funds trying to short it into bankruptcy. Buying in at $300 is almost certainly gambling. But where’s the line? Anything over book value? Anything over some PE ratio? If so, you basically can’t invest in anything these days.
  - bsanr2 6y ago
    Uncertainty based on incomplete data. With an investment, you have most of the data about a given venture as it stands at the moment in front of you; only the future is uncertain. With a gamble, you have profoundly incomplete information about the venture in its present state. This is often a feature for the "house", who can use this information asymmetry to manipulate odds. $300 wasn't gambling if you were throwing in based on an understanding of gamma and short squeezes and GME's standing on the week of the 25th. That information was complete and supported the thesis, "If I buy at $300/share I should be able to sell at a profit in the near future." (And,this turned out to be correct; selling before trading opened would have netted an up yo 65% return.) It was, however, ultimately a gamble, because of incomplete information about the solvency of retail brokerages (and the ability of "the house" to manipulate odds by increasing collateral requirements without explanation). Unfortunately, this revelation marks the entire financial market as essentially a casino.
  - Bakary 6y ago
    It is a very compelling question, and I don't have a real answer to it. I'll have to echo bsanr2's take as I believe they've explained it better than I could hope to.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Bakary 6y ago

It doesn't just sound a lot like it. It is literally gambling.

aikinai 6y ago
Serious question, where do you draw the line between investing and gambling? The original case for GME was built on solid fundamentals and I’d say not really gambling even though you were going up against hedge funds trying to short it into bankruptcy. Buying in at $300 is almost certainly gambling. But where’s the line? Anything over book value? Anything over some PE ratio? If so, you basically can’t invest in anything these days.
- bsanr2 6y ago
  Uncertainty based on incomplete data. With an investment, you have most of the data about a given venture as it stands at the moment in front of you; only the future is uncertain. With a gamble, you have profoundly incomplete information about the venture in its present state. This is often a feature for the "house", who can use this information asymmetry to manipulate odds. $300 wasn't gambling if you were throwing in based on an understanding of gamma and short squeezes and GME's standing on the week of the 25th. That information was complete and supported the thesis, "If I buy at $300/share I should be able to sell at a profit in the near future." (And,this turned out to be correct; selling before trading opened would have netted an up yo 65% return.) It was, however, ultimately a gamble, because of incomplete information about the solvency of retail brokerages (and the ability of "the house" to manipulate odds by increasing collateral requirements without explanation). Unfortunately, this revelation marks the entire financial market as essentially a casino.
- Bakary 6y ago
  It is a very compelling question, and I don't have a real answer to it. I'll have to echo bsanr2's take as I believe they've explained it better than I could hope to.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]