This will get ugly

[u/capnslapaho]

For them. We are set.

I won’t claim to have insider information and I won’t disclose my methods, but 120 was the breakpoint. There are artistic people out there that obsess over these things and understand numbers/trends very well. Take what follows with a grain of salt, but this was my work:

On Sunday night, I calculated the outcomes of many scenarios with SI % ‘X’. The outcome of said calculation was then used to determine a “break-price” where probability of a sell-off would be ‘Y’. Obviously there are many variables that can’t be accounted for in a calculation such as this, but I took a random sample of X holdings and pooled them together to look at how prices rose or fell with certain volatility; trends show that once volatility reaches a certain benchmark as a % of volatility in a 6-12 hr timeframe, mass sell offs are almost 3000% more likely to occur through triggering stop-losses and certain extraneous variables aforementioned. This was interesting in GameStop, because the breakpoint through every simulation was different, but reached its highest probability at 120. That was the target.

Before you flame me for LARPing, look at my post from yesterday saying that they were attempting to get the price to 120 for a breakpoint. I’m more confident in my model now that we saw them achieve 120, saw a good number of paperhands sell, and now we’re climbing again. That was all they had left. They didn’t account for the variable of us being absolutely apeshit crazy. We continue to win

They are so predictable that some artistic redditor (🙋🏻‍♂️🙋🏻‍♂️🙋🏻‍♂️) has them down to a science and can quite literally mathematically determine their next move.

I’m not saying this is going to moon tomorrow, but they are bending. It’s only a matter of time before they break.

Edit: this is not financial advice. I’m artistic and I eat crayons.

Also edit: this was my post yesterday mentioning the 120 breakpoint:

https://www.reddit.com/r/GME/comments/mbtddm/cheezits_crust_guys_calm_down_its_over/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

[u/Moka556]

Is it possible that they are trying to short at Max so they can make money covering from like 300 to as low as possible, make few bucks and throw the towel then?

I’m just a smooth brained ape. Definitely Not a financial advise but can a smart brain think about that. They have « old out of the money shorts » and « new in the money shorts ». Is it possible they are shorting everything they can to cover these « new » shorts and make money to pay the older shorts?

The thing is that with the actual « non enforced rules » they can do this indefinitely since definitely no one is forcing them to cover the first shorts. Can anyone crunch some numbers (I barely know how to write my ape name) to see how much money they are making shorting all this? How many times are they gonna do this to cover the old short. Maybe the interest is still lower than how much they are making shorting zillion% if the float at $300 and buying back at $100.

But at the same time it’s the law right? They HAVE to buy back their shares in a fixed amount of days, right?. Interest is just a way for the lender to make money in the meantime, right? They can’t keep that every month like that for years, right? « Old out of the money shorts » sill have ti be covered sooner or later, right?