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.

Strategies & Market Trends : APMP (formerly APM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brian Lempel who wrote (10354)	3/15/1998 2:39:00 PM
From: WTMHouston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13456

Brian.....thanks for the input....Rudy had considered the equal points up and down before the game started and rejected the idea because of the negative effect it might have on peoples' desire to continue playing: I think he was wise in that regard. For the most part, those that haven't done well have effectively dropped out of the game.... In order to present a more realistic picture of results - or at least an alternative picture -- I began keeping the percentage numbers and posting them monthly...those that take big hits on big losers suffer in the percentage rankings... The proposed averaging down rule would carry negative consequences: if a player didn't get positive, they would lose 2 points instead of one. I considered double positive points if they ended up positive, but rejected it because doing so would skew the reason for doing it....For example, someone is down 3% on a pick and averages down and ends up at +1%...their reward for averaging down is positive points -- not double positive points....the penalty for losing the gamble is -2 instead of -1..... Moreover, there is seems unfair to me to give them +2, when someone who was long all week and up 1% only got 1 point. Finally, the proposed change keeps it simple but gives those in the NSF column something to do during the week other than watch the pick stay down.. I considered the averaging up and awarding extra points as well, but think our point setup would not make it feasible. For example, someone that is up over 10% could get 6 points instead of 5, by simply averaging up. I buy XYZ at 10, it goes to 11.25, which gives me a +12.5%, by averaging up at 11.25, my average cost becomes 10.625, which still leaves me up around 5.9%, which if I had double points would give me 6 (3 x 2) instead of the 5 for being >10%. Plus, I couldn't figure out am easy way to penalize if it went down..... Plus, it would be too much extra work... Perhaps - and I just thought about this and haven't really thought it through - we could allow averaging up and down by just doubling the final percentage and letting the doubled percentage determine positive points...with the same -2 if an average up or down ended up down.... For anyone who has made it through all of this....none of the proposed changes will be implemented this week...I want to give it another week for comments... I initially liked the averaging down suggestion simply to give NSF's an option other than watching their position for a loss....I know that our game is skewed to the positive side, but that's okay - it keeps peoples' interest and keeps it fun - no one likes to see a minus by their name or pick....Given a trade off between fun and reality, I'll generally opt for the fun...most of us have enough reality elsewhere. Troy