Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (142095)	1/7/2002 9:28:56 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Yes, at his convenience and depending on his position, No. Completely false. This is your on going critical error. It has a prejudice built in. The market controls the specialist. You're sounding more and more like Richard Ney. that's what I said. You don't understand the mechanism. That's clear from your prejudice driven conclusions if not from your comments which haven't been clear yet. He will let it rise on few trades when long or before going short when possible. He can't do what you think. As for not competing with the book, well that's only at the same price. Wrong. .. he does it all the time by offering just below or bidding just above when he smells an order imbalance. The rules require that a bid or offer is provided within a certain distance of the last trade price assuming the public hasn't supplied one. That's the prime function of the specialist. Nothing to do with competition with the public which is expressly forbidden. The only competition that exists is found on the NAZ where other MMs can tighten the bid or offer against another MM. It's not a 'setup'... it's common sense, But you have been implying that it is a set-up. if he has 10k offered on his book with no more offers before up $1 and he sees some buyer come back he'll take it on a zero tick and let it go up on nothing. This is nonsense. Incoherent babbling. If you want to flesh it out so I can take it apart, please do, because I know it's just gibberish. I know what you don't wish to express, but it's blatantly false and is part of your on going misinformed prejudice. As I said, then you're at risk of the train hitting you. You are in capital markets to take risk and for no other purpose, so why dilute your intent? You didn't get my point about honchos needing to sell you their fear. That's what hedging is all about. When you hedge you bet against yourself. How smart is that? As smart as those "experts" who you think are smarter than me? The one's we discover below have sold out to "outside interests" for $12 million for their piece of "The Hotel Royale"? If you're saying you can't beat the market then then you'd be wrong IMO. In YOO you know from experience that you can't beat it. That's why you buy into glorifying your honchos. You have to believe they can beat it, otherwise, what you know from experience, is generally true. That would make trading a loser. That's the one thing you must reject, because then you're had. Permanently. Well, why would you say they're going to blow themselves up??? Because: FWIW the've sold out to Swiss Bank for hundreds of millions and they're off being successful on their own. They've been kicked upstairs. Don't you get it yet? Why not extend your paranoia to what works in your interest? If you think anything I've posted to you is inaccurate to any extent, then I want you to get the most skilled pro in the biz that you can to come and put me down. I want to show you that these great pros are no better at the game than you are. In fact, they're probably worse since you don't have the superficial advantages that they have. The advantages are actually disadvantages and so "off being successful on their own" is a myth that you perpetuate and which only enables you to deny what you know is true.