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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (13043)	6/9/2006 10:00:30 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78418

What we do know is that if someone hits 600 feet of gold at 4 - 24 grams per tonne, and he has a PhD, the probability that the stock will go to 19 dollars is excellent. If a high school graduate hits a large body of gold which they will not reveal the grade of, but promotes it excellently, the insiders will make 30 dollars a share, almost assuredly. (Pierina) I am not sure how to calculate the probability of Strata Gold, Sacre Coeur or Everton, accurately (If I could I would quit my day job right f.. now) but I am sure it is up there around 30 to 60 percent somewhere. Worth betting on. If enough of a herd is trading on a toilet-seat volatile stock, then stats and probs are a good way to approach it. (Shannon, Bernstein etc) Camarilla is based on stat levels and the principle that a stock tends to move in a trend most like yesterday's moves. You could make yesterday a longer period if you want to look further out. Stats and probs would probably work well then. Few people think that Skylar will become a 15 dollar stock. This is why I think it has excellent chances. Few people are often right about the market. (The others are probably correct if they think they should not trade stocks.) I wish I knew all the time what some people were long on. If I could find out surreptitiously, I could make a pile of dough on shorts. It's like the goats. If you land on the door first, then it is 66% chance you are on a goat. Once the other door is opened, it is always a goat of course, so automatically to switch from a 66% chance-space (that you are not on a Cadillac) you must be switching to a 66% chance you do get a Cadillac. Ergo the 100% fallibility hypothesis would be useful. (If the MC picks a goat first, he spoils it and you are back to 50-50. Why? Because he could pick "your" 66% goat.. which spoils the "switching chance.")

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (13043)	6/9/2006 10:24:38 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78418

<The main weakness of decision analysis in real decision contexts is that you need to have some idea of the probabilities involved, and they are seldom available. For example, I've never considered trying to apply any of these methods to investment decisions, where, as you say, the main factors are emotional/psychological issues, particularly mob psychology.> Yes, probabilities are linear... life in non-linear. We've evolved to intuit the nature, not play dice. -ggg- DAK