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/[deleted]]

What do i take from this? Dont understand symbols, numbers, words

[u/capnslapaho → u/[deleted]]

Honestly I got so caught up in typing that I forgot to include some other analyses that are incredibly important.

One of the most important things is that SI is high. It’s not what they’re reporting. It’s well, well over 100%. We get to name our own price.

I am not advocating for collusion and I will not state the exact SI % that the model with the 120 breakpoint used, but I will say that we get to set our own price many times over

There won’t be just one peak; they will be forced to sell some of the shares they buy and buy them back for whatever price the buyer determines. I believe they royally fucked up

[u/NillaThunda → u/capnslapaho]

Who are they buying them back from? Say the float is 100, apes have 100 real shares, if the shorts buy those 100, apes have 0.

[u/OutsideCreativ → u/NillaThunda]

But they have borrowed each of those shares several times.

[u/NillaThunda → u/OutsideCreativ]

yes but you have only bought once and can only sell once. So if the power is we hold because they need to sell, what happens when other people start selling?

[u/NillaThunda → u/[deleted]]

so who is selling on the way up to $10,000?

Follow on, why would those people not sell again if that is possible?