3-Bet Strategy: This Is Why (And How) You Need to 3-Bet More
3-Bet Strategy: This Is Why (And How) You Need to 3-Bet More
The 3-Bet | How To 3-Bet Light - The Poker Bank
3-betting and 4-betting - Poker Statistics
Understanding 3-Bet Ranges In 2021 | SplitSuit Poker
3 Bet Poker – A Top Strategy Guide | 888poker Magazine
What is a 3 Bet in Poker: How do You Play 3 Bets?
3 Bet Meaning Poker
3Bet Definition Poker
Revealed: How to React to Preflop 3-Bets - Upswing Poker
21+3 blackjack: How to play the popular blackjack side bet
3 bet poker meaning
3 bet poker meaning - win
Emotional involvement has never been this high, please understand the risk involved.
First of all, I can't wait to be berated in the comments. I'm gonna be blunt, I have seen a whole lot of dumb shit over the last week. A lot more than normal. And compounding all of that is an unprecedented amount of legitimate emotional involvement here. So let me get started by saying outright that people getting emotionally involved with trading stocks always lose. Short, long, whatever. It doesn't matter if you're a 19 year old throwing in your life savings or Bill fucking Ackman not being able to admit he was wrong with Herbalife. Letting your emotions be a major factor in trading is a fantastic way to lose money. And a whole lot of you are really emotionally involved with this GME, AMC, whatever. To the point: I am not making a buy/sell/hold/whatever recommendation. I have no special insight in to what's happening with GME or whatever else. What I can tell you is that it is for sure not worth $300. So let's dispel one quick thing: this is not David vs Goliath. It also isn't the little man vs hedge funds or WSB vs big finance. It might have started out that way, but if you only read one thing read this:
Many of the big retail brokerages, including Robinhood, route a lot of their customer orders to Citadel Securities, so it ends up seeing a large percentage of retail trades in U.S. stocks. It can see if retail traders are mostly buying or mostly selling or mostly pretty balanced. You might expect—I certainly expected—to see that retail traders were buying more than they were selling this week. The stock seemed to be rocketing up on frenzied retail sentiment, and the posters on WallStreetBets were all claiming that they would never sell and keep buying until it hit $1,000. But here’s what Citadel Securities’ retail flow looked like in GameStop this week: 1 Graphic here Retail investors were net buyers on Monday but net sellers for the rest of the week (through yesterday), and all in all quite balanced: About 49.8% of retail orders (that Citadel Securities saw) were to buy, and 50.2% were to sell. What do you make of that? One reading would be: “Retail investors on Reddit might have started the GameStop rally, but they’re not piling into this stock now, and the price action this week is coming from professionals.” Or as one Twitter user put it, “past the retail ignition, the rocket ship was mostly intra-fast money warfare.”
So, just to be clear about this, there is massive institutional money on both sides of this trade, and retail is a toddler sitting at the world series of poker. Understand that melvin does not need to cover in the way a retail trader needs to cover. You, and everyone else, have no idea what Melvin's position looks like, and they can reorganize and exit a position before you ever knew it happened. You don't know how hedged they are, you don't know what their collateral looks like, and you don't know if they've covered and restructured a short at last week's prices. You simply don't know. You only know what's been presented in the news, which is almost certainly bullshit. This thing could come to an end as fast as it started and you won't know what happened for weeks. You might go take a shit at 1pm today and come back to GME trading at $16 because Ken Griffin got on CNBC and announced they restructured their short at an average price of $200, and were happy to sit on it. Make no mistake, you'll get kicked in the nuts and have your ball taken away faster than you can comprehend. Emotions The problem with this whole "strike back at wall street" narrative is that lots of you are getting really worked up over this trade. Losing money sucks, but losing money and feeling like you got shit on by the big guy is going to hurt. This isn't a moral crusade to them, it's 25 billion dollars. So if you're out here putting money and emotions on the line that you can't afford to lose there won't be a happy ending. Want to fight the good fight against wall street? Write your congressman, Tweet AOC or Ted Cruz, get you a fucking picket sign and go wave it around on the streeet. But dropping money on GME that you need in life ain't gonna change anything except your net worth. TLDR: 1) know and understand who is playing this game. And that they have access to tools, leverage, and markets that you do not. You're playing Le Chiffre at Casino Royale right now, you might think you're James Bond but there's a good chance that you're just the fat dude in the corner. 2) Short squeezes end fast. As fast as they started. If you're new to trading then understand buying GME at this price can mean all of your money will evaporate before you had time to make a TikTock about it. 3) Get your emotions out of play here. This whole nonsense political narrative is only going to cause you to make trading mistakes. Can't handle that? then maybe it's not a good idea to sit at this table. Lastly, if you really just can't get yourself out of the whole "fight the hedge funds" nonsense, at least understand that you're spending money that you likely won't get back. If that's worth it to you then have at it. But don't fool yourself in to thinking otherwise. E: Completely unrelated: I hate reddit awards, reddit doesn't need your money. Go buy like a hundredth of a share of VTI or something.
Why you should learn poker and game theory (LONG READ)
Hello everyone! I have only been on Reddit for a few months but I learned so much from it that I figured I should try and give back to the community. English is my second language and this is the first time I ever write a full-length article, I hope you will enjoy reading it and I would be very thankful if you could provide some feedback about my writing, about the topic, or about anything else really… So here goes! Why you should learn poker and game theory: My story is similar to that of many: I learned about the game 10 years ago (during the golden age of online poker) when some friends of mine invited me to play a home game. Although I initially thought of poker as just another game of chance akin to playing slots or roulette in a casino, I quickly came to realize that there is a lot more to it as my more experienced friends would repeatedly get the best of me during these home games, which led me to start watching videos and reading strategy books to improve my skill… Little did I know it’d be the start of a journey that would impact many different aspects of my life way beyond the game itself, as most of the fundamental principles learned through poker can be applied to your decision-making outside of the game, especially when it comes to money management and investing. Now, let’s dive into a few of these principles: - Risk management (i.e. Bankroll management) When learning about how to be successful playing poker, the first big piece of advice most people come across is bankroll management or BRM. To understand BRM, you must first realize that poker has a lot of variance: you might be vastly ahead in a given hand but there is almost always a slim chance that you will lose in the end if one specific card hits. This implies that you will sometimes lose even though you were a 99% favorite, and that you will sometimes get unlucky and lose 2, 5 or maybe even 20 such encounters in a row. THIS is variance. It doesn’t mean that you played bad or that you made bad decisions, but rather that you got unlucky. Over time you will have lucky streaks and unlucky streaks, and these will average out in the long term… It’s just the way the game goes. Now that we understand variance, let’s get back to BRM. What is it exactly? Let’s say you are the best poker player in the world but you only have 1000$ that you can EVER use to play with. Taking your whole 1000$ on one table and multiplying your stack at an exponential rate might seem like a good idea. Surely nothing can go wrong since you’re the best player in the world right? But variance can be a bitch ;) Even if you’re the best you will lose regularly and you will sometimes get unlucky, it’s just part of the game. The correct move here is to apply BRM, which means only using a small % of your available capital for each game you play in order to reduce the risk of going broke. Using only 100$ per game would already be a lot safer, but you still run the risk of going under on a streak of bad luck. If you only allocate 10$ per game you play, then it becomes virtually impossible for you to ever go broke, even on a huge streak of bad luck. Sure it’s not as exciting and you won’t be making money quite as fast as you could, but this is the way to go to make sure you don’t go broke… This approach to risk management translates very well to investing: - Only invest what you can afford to lose. Once the money is on the table it’s as good as gone, which is why you should only use your “spare” cash and never invest with your living expenses or worse, borrow money to invest. - Diversify your investments. There is always a chance, however slim it might be, that you will lose most of your investment. This is why going all-in on a specific investment is generally a bad idea (this applies particularly well in the crypto space). Proper BRM allows you to make sure that you will come out ahead in the long run if you play well, which basically comes down to making more good decisions than bad ones. But that’s assuming you don’t let emotions come in the way of your decision-making, which brings us to our next point… - Emotional management (i.e. Handling tilt/Positive mindset) Nobody likes losing… In the same way we enjoy winning because of the dopamine rush, we feel bad when we lose which is totally natural. Overcoming this and avoiding tilt (irrational decisions made out of angefrustration) is an essential skill for any successful poker player. You might play a sound game of poker and apply good BRM, but you will still lose if you let your emotions get the best of you. After a loss, rather than being angry and frustrated, you should evaluate your decision-making. If your decision-making was good, you just got unlucky and you shouldn’t worry about it since you are playing for the long run (remember that variance teaches us that anything can happen in the short-term). If your decision-making was bad, you need to learn from your mistakes and move on. The key here is to always have a positive mindset: making mistakes is part of the learning process and should be seen as an occasion to improve. Being angry and ranting, on the other hand, rarely result in anything positive. Again, this translates very well to investing: - Don’t be impulsive, don’t let your emotions cloud your judgment. You should not FOMO because the price is pumping, nor should you sell because of FUD or price corrections. If you believe in a project, short-term price changes (did I hear someone say “variance”?) shouldn’t bother you. - Don’t get stuck up on losses. You bought the top and it crashed immediately after? You sold the bottom right before a huge rally? Don’t let this bother you: what’s done is done and you just need to move on and make the best of your current situation. - Have a positive mindset. Anger and frustration lead to nothing. Yes you could have bought in 2009 when you first heard about it, hindsight is always 20/20. Stay positive and keep learning/improving yourself. The good thing about all this is that it goes way beyond poker or investing. Being aware of your emotions and how they affect you, learning how to handle losing even when you were “supposed” to win, etc… All this can tremendously help you in all aspects of life by making you less impulsive and more rational in your decision-making. Now, this leaves us with our last fundamental principle of a sound poker strategy: - Basic stats and probabilities (i.e. Expected value/Odds) To become an accomplished player, you will inevitably have to learn about these simple mathematical tools that poker players use all the time in their decision-making process, such as odds and expected value. To make it very simple, the expected value (EV) of any bet is (REWARD \ WinRate - RISK), meaning that if you can bet 1000$ with a chance to win 10k$ half of the time, your EV is *(10000\0.5)-1000 = +4000$**. Obviously these are great odds to take as long as you have enough capital to overcome variance. But things would be very different if the odds of winning were only 5% as your EV would then be negative *(10000\0.05)-1000 = -500$.*** Now this is clearly a bet you should not take… Now that you know probabilities, statistics and game theory are useful decision-making tools in poker, guess what? They are also extremely useful in investing! Even better, the study of game theory with problems such as the “Byzantine generals” or the “Three prisoners” has been, along with cryptography, the foundation on which blockchain technology was built, enabling the trustless and decentralized services that are about to revolutionize our world… Assuming this was enough to pique your interest and make you want to dig deeper, I’ll just add that just like the other topics we discussed and as you might have guessed, this translates very well to investing and also to pretty much anything in your life: - Learn how to break down complex situations. Logical thinking paired with a statistical approach will help you break down any complex problem into several easier problems, making the whole thing a lot easier to approach/comprehend. - Base your decisions on a methodical and rational approach. List every possible outcome along with its associated upside/downside, estimate the probability of each outcome to occur and make the best decision based on the information available. My point here is that risk management, emotional management and statistics/game theory are all awesome tools that you should definitely add to your arsenal. Not only will it improve your money-management and investing, it will also be beneficial to your decision-making and to your life in general. Of course poker is not the only way to learn about these, but I personally found it to be the best practice ground to refine and improve them, which is why I strongly encourage you all to try it out and study the game. I hope you enjoyed the article, and I wish you all a happy 2021 bull run! May we all come closer to retirement and financial independence! TL;DR:more than a game, poker is a school of thought. It teaches you to be reasonable, to assess the risk of every single choice you make, to overcome you emotions, to play the long game rather than the short game, to make informed decisions, etc… This has made me a lot wiser in every aspect of my life, which is why I strongly encourage to try it out and read about poker strategy.
Playboy going public: Porn, Gambling, and Cannabis
NEW INFO 5 Results from share redemption are posted. Less than .2% redeemed. Very bullish as investors are showing extreme confidence in the future of PLBY. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/playboy-mountain-crest-acquisition-corp-120000721.html NEW INFO 4 Definitive Agreement to purchase 100% of Lovers brand stores announced 2/1. https://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Playboy+%28MCAC%29+Confirms+Deal+to+Acquire+Lovers/17892359.html NEW INFO 3 I bought more on the dip today. 5081 total. Price rose AH to $12.38 (2.15%) NEW INFO 2 Here is the full webinar. https://icrinc.zoom.us/rec/play/9GWKdmOYumjWfZuufW3QXpe_FW_g--qeNbg6PnTjTMbnNTgLmCbWjeRFpQga1iPc-elpGap8dnDv8Zww.yD7DjUwuPmapeEdP?continueMode=true&tk=lEYc4F_FkKlgsmCIs6w0gtGHT2kbgVGbUju3cIRBSjk.DQIAAAAV8NK49xZWdldRM2xNSFNQcTBmcE00UzM3bXh3AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA&uuid=WN_GKWqbHkeSyuWetJmLFkj4g&_x_zm_rtaid=kR45-uuqRE-L65AxLjpbQw.1611967079119.2c054e3d3f8d8e63339273d9175939ed&_x_zm_rhtaid=866 NEW INFO 1 Live merger webinar with PLBY and MCAC on Friday January 29, 2021 at 12:00 NOON EST link below https://mcacquisition.com/investor-relations/press-release-details/2021/Playboy-Enterprises-Inc.-and-Mountain-Crest-Acquisition-Corp-Participate-in-SPACInsider-ICR-Webinar-on-January-29th-at-12pm-ET/default.aspx Playboy going public: Porn, Gambling, and Cannabis !!!WARNING READING AHEAD!!! TL;DR at the end. It will take some time to sort through all the links and read/watch everything, but you should. In the next couple weeks, Mountain Crest Acquisition Corp is taking Playboy public. The existing ticker MCAC will become PLBY. Special purpose acquisition companies have taken private companies public in recent months with great success. I believe this will be no exception. Notably, Playboy is profitable and has skyrocketing revenue going into a transformational growth phase. Porn - First and foremost, let's talk about porn. I know what you guys are thinking. “Porno mags are dead. Why would I want to invest in something like that? I can get porn for free online.” Guess what? You are absolutely right. And that’s exactly why Playboy doesn’t do that anymore. That’s right, they eliminated their print division. And yet they somehow STILL make money from porn that people (see: boomers) pay for on their website through PlayboyTV, Playboy Plus, and iPlayboy. Here’s the thing: Playboy has international, multi-generational name recognition from porn. They have content available in 180 countries. It will be the only publicly traded adult entertainment (porn) company. But that is not where this company is going. It will help support them along the way. You can see every Playboy magazine through iPlayboy if you’re interested. NSFW links below: https://www.playboy.com/ https://www.playboytv.com/ https://www.playboyplus.com/ https://www.iplayboy.com/ Gambling - Some of you might recognize the Playboy brand from gambling trips to places like Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Cancun, London or Macau. They’ve been in the gambling biz for decades through their casinos, clubs, and licensed gaming products. They see the writing on the wall. COVID is accelerating the transition to digital, application based GAMBLING. That’s right. What we are doing on Robinhood with risky options is gambling, and the only reason regulators might give a shit anymore is because we are making too much money. There may be some restrictions put in place, but gambling from your phone on your couch is not going anywhere. More and more states are allowing things like Draftkings, poker, state ‘lottery” apps, hell - even political betting. Michigan and Virginia just ok’d gambling apps. They won’t be the last. This is all from your couch and any 18 year old with a cracked iphone can access it. Wouldn’t it be cool if Playboy was going to do something like that? They’re already working on it. As per CEO Ben Kohn who we will get to later, “...the company’s casino-style digital gaming products with Scientific Games and Microgaming continue to see significant global growth.” Honestly, I stopped researching Scientific Games' sports betting segment when I saw the word ‘omni-channel’. That told me all I needed to know about it’s success. “Our SG Sports™ platform is an enhanced, omni-channel solution for online, self-service and retail fixed odds sports betting – from soccer to tennis, basketball, football, baseball, hockey, motor sports, racing and more.” https://www.scientificgames.com/ https://www.microgaming.co.uk/ “This latter segment has become increasingly enticing for Playboy, and it said last week that it is considering new tie-ups that could include gaming operators like PointsBet and 888Holdings.” https://calvinayre.com/2020/10/05/business/playboys-gaming-ops-could-get-a-boost-from-spac-purchase/ As per their SEC filing: “Significant consumer engagement and spend with Playboy-branded gaming properties around the world, including with leading partners such as Microgaming, Scientific Games, and Caesar’s Entertainment, steers our investment in digital gaming, sports betting and other digital offerings to further support our commercial strategy to expand consumer spend with minimal marginal cost, and gain consumer data to inform go-to-market plans across categories.” https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921005986/tm2034213-12_defm14a.htm#tMDAA1 They are expanding into more areas of gaming/gambling, working with international players in the digital gaming/gambling arena, and a Playboy sportsbook is on the horizon. https://www.playboy.com/read/the-pleasure-of-playing-with-yourself-mobile-gaming-in-the-covid-era Cannabis - If you’ve ever read through a Playboy magazine, you know they’ve had a positive relationship with cannabis for many years. As of September 2020, Playboy has made a major shift into the cannabis space. Too good to be true you say? Check their website. Playboy currently sells a range of CBD products. This is a good sign. Federal hemp products, which these most likely are, can be mailed across state lines and most importantly for a company like Playboy, can operate through a traditional banking institution. CBD products are usually the first step towards the cannabis space for large companies. Playboy didn’t make these products themselves meaning they are working with a processor in the cannabis industry. Another good sign for future expansion. What else do they have for sale? Pipes, grinders, ashtrays, rolling trays, joint holders. Hmm. Ok. So it looks like they want to sell some shit. They probably don’t have an active interest in cannabis right? Think again: https://www.forbes.com/sites/javierhasse/2020/09/24/playboy-gets-serious-about-cannabis-law-reform-advocacy-with-new-partnership-grants/?sh=62f044a65cea “Taking yet another step into the cannabis space, Playboy will be announcing later on Thursday (September, 2020) that it is launching a cannabis law reform and advocacy campaign in partnership with National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Last Prisoner Project, Marijuana Policy Project, the Veterans Cannabis Project, and the Eaze Momentum Program.” “According to information procured exclusively, the three-pronged campaign will focus on calling for federal legalization. The program also includes the creation of a mentorship plan, through which the Playboy Foundation will support entrepreneurs from groups that are underrepresented in the industry.” Remember that CEO Kohn from earlier? He wrote this recently: https://medium.com/naked-open-letters-from-playboy/congress-must-pass-the-more-act-c867c35239ae Seems like he really wants weed to be legal? Hmm wonder why? The writing's on the wall my friends. Playboy wants into the cannabis industry, they are making steps towards this end, and we have favorable conditions for legislative progress. Don’t think branding your own cannabis line is profitable or worthwhile? Tell me why these 41 celebrity millionaires and billionaires are dummies. I’ll wait. https://www.celebstoner.com/news/celebstoner-news/2019/07/12/top-celebrity-cannabis-brands/ Confirmation: I hear you. “This all seems pretty speculative. It would be wildly profitable if they pull this shift off. But how do we really know?” Watch this whole video: https://finance.yahoo.com/video/playboy-ceo-telling-story-female-154907068.html Man - this interview just gets my juices flowing. And highlights one of my favorite reasons for this play. They have so many different business avenues from which a catalyst could appear. I think paying attention, holding shares, and options on these staggered announcements over the next year is the way I am going to go about it. "There's definitely been a shift to direct-to-consumer," he (Kohn) said. "About 50 percent of our revenue today is direct-to-consumer, and that will continue to grow going forward.” “Kohn touted Playboy's portfolio of both digital and consumer products, with casino-style gaming, in particular, serving a crucial role under the company's new business model. Playboy also has its sights on the emerging cannabis market, from CBD products to marijuana products geared toward sexual health and pleasure.” "If THC does become legal in the United States, we have developed certain strains to enhance your sex life that we will launch," Kohn said. https://cheddar.com/media/playboy-goes-public-health-gaming-lifestyle-focus Oh? The CEO actually said it? Ok then. “We have developed certain strains…” They’re already working with growers on strains and genetics? Ok. There are several legal cannabis markets for those products right now, international and stateside. I expect Playboy licensed hemp and THC pre-rolls by EOY. Something like this: https://www.etsy.com/listing/842996758/10-playboy-pre-roll-tubes-limited?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=pre+roll+playboy&ref=sr_gallery-1-2&organic_search_click=1 Maintaining cannabis operations can be costly and a regulatory headache. Playboy’s licensing strategy allows them to pick successful, established partners and sidestep traditional barriers to entry. You know what I like about these new markets? They’re expanding. Worldwide. And they are going to be a bigger deal than they already are with or without Playboy. Who thinks weed and gambling are going away? Too many people like that stuff. These are easy markets. And Playboy is early enough to carve out their spot in each. Fuck it, read this too: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimosman/2020/10/20/playboy-could-be-the-king-of-spacs-here-are-three-picks/?sh=2e13dcaa3e05 Numbers: You want numbers? I got numbers. As per the company’s most recent SEC filing: “For the year ended December 31, 2019, and the nine months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s historical consolidated revenue was $78.1 million and $101.3 million, respectively, historical consolidated net income (loss) was $(23.6) million and $(4.8) million, respectively, and Adjusted EBITDA was $13.1 million and $21.8 million, respectively.” “In the nine months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s Licensing segment contributed $44.2 million in revenue and $31.1 million in net income.” “In the ninth months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s Direct-to-Consumer segment contributed $40.2 million in revenue and net income of $0.1 million.” “In the nine months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s Digital Subscriptions and Content segment contributed $15.4 million in revenue and net income of $7.4 million.” They are profitable across all three of their current business segments. “Playboy’s return to the public markets presents a transformed, streamlined and high-growth business. The Company has over $400 million in cash flows contracted through 2029, sexual wellness products available for sale online and in over 10,000 major retail stores in the US, and a growing variety of clothing and branded lifestyle and digital gaming products.” https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921005986/tm2034213-12_defm14a.htm#tSHCF Growth: Playboy has massive growth in China and massive growth potential in India. “In China, where Playboy has spent more than 25 years building its business, our licensees have an enormous footprint of nearly 2,500 brick and mortar stores and 1,000 ecommerce stores selling high quality, Playboy-branded men’s casual wear, shoes/footwear, sleepwear, swimwear, formal suits, leather & non-leather goods, sweaters, active wear, and accessories. We have achieved significant growth in China licensing revenues over the past several years in partnership with strong licensees and high-quality manufacturers, and we are planning for increased growth through updates to our men’s fashion lines and expansion into adjacent categories in men’s skincare and grooming, sexual wellness, and women’s fashion, a category where recent launches have been well received.” The men’s market in China is about the same size as the entire population of the United States and European Union combined. Playboy is a leading brand in this market. They are expanding into the women’s market too. Did you know CBD toothpaste is huge in China? China loves CBD products and has hemp fields that dwarf those in the US. If Playboy expands their CBD line China it will be huge. Did you know the gambling money in Macau absolutely puts Las Vegas to shame? Technically, it's illegal on the mainland, but in reality, there is a lot of gambling going on in China. https://www.forbes.com/sites/javierhasse/2020/10/19/magic-johnson-and-uncle-buds-cbd-brand-enter-china-via-tmall-partnership/?sh=271776ca411e “In India, Playboy today has a presence through select apparel licensees and hospitality establishments. Consumer research suggests significant growth opportunities in the territory with Playboy’s brand and categories of focus.” “Playboy Enterprises has announced the expansion of its global consumer products business into India as part of a partnership with Jay Jay Iconic Brands, a leading fashion and lifestyle Company in India.” “The Indian market today is dominated by consumers under the age of 35, who represent more than 65 percent of the country’s total population and are driving India’s significant online shopping growth. The Playboy brand’s core values of playfulness and exploration resonate strongly with the expressed desires of today’s younger millennial consumers. For us, Playboy was the perfect fit.” “The Playboy international portfolio has been flourishing for more than 25 years in several South Asian markets such as China and Japan. In particular, it has strategically targeted the millennial and gen-Z audiences across categories such as apparel, footwear, home textiles, eyewear and watches.” https://www.licenseglobal.com/industry-news/playboy-expands-global-footprint-india It looks like they gave COVID the heisman in terms of net damage sustained: “Although Playboy has not suffered any material adverse consequences to date from the COVID-19 pandemic, the business has been impacted both negatively and positively. The remote working and stay-at-home orders resulted in the closure of the London Playboy Club and retail stores of Playboy’s licensees, decreasing licensing revenues in the second quarter, as well as causing supply chain disruption and less efficient product development thereby slowing the launch of new products. However, these negative impacts were offset by an increase in Yandy’s direct-to-consumer sales, which have benefited in part from overall increases in online retail sales so far during the pandemic.” Looks like the positives are long term (Yandy acquisition) and the negatives are temporary (stay-at-home orders). https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921006093/tm213766-1_defa14a.htm This speaks to their ability to maintain a financially solvent company throughout the transition phase to the aforementioned areas. They’d say some fancy shit like “expanded business model to encompass four key revenue streams: Sexual Wellness, Style & Apparel, Gaming & Lifestyle, and Beauty & Grooming.” I hear “we’re just biding our time with these trinkets until those dollar dollar bill y’all markets are fully up and running.” But the truth is these existing revenue streams are profitable, scalable, and rapidly expanding Playboy’s e-commerce segment around the world. "Even in the face of COVID this year, we've been able to grow EBITDA over 100 percent and revenue over 68 percent, and I expect that to accelerate going into 2021," he said. “Playboy is accelerating its growth in company-owned and branded consumer products in attractive and expanding markets in which it has a proven history of brand affinity and consumer spend.” Also in the SEC filing, the Time Frame: “As we detailed in the definitive proxy statement, the SPAC stockholder meeting to vote on the transaction has been set for February 9th, and, subject to stockholder approval and satisfaction of the other closing conditions, we expect to complete the merger and begin trading on NASDAQ under ticker PLBY shortly thereafter,” concluded Kohn. The Players: Suhail “The Whale” Rizvi (HMFIC), Ben “The Bridge” Kohn (CEO), “lil” Suying Liu & “Big” Dong Liu (Young-gun China gang). I encourage you to look these folks up. The real OG here is Suhail Rizvi. He’s from India originally and Chairman of the Board for the new PLBY company. He was an early investor in Twitter, Square, Facebook and others. His firm, Rizvi Traverse, currently invests in Instacart, Pinterest, Snapchat, Playboy, and SpaceX. Maybe you’ve heard of them. “Rizvi, who owns a sprawling three-home compound in Greenwich, Connecticut, and a 1.65-acre estate in Palm Beach, Florida, near Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg, moved to Iowa Falls when he was five. His father was a professor of psychology at Iowa. Along with his older brother Ashraf, a hedge fund manager, Rizvi graduated from Wharton business school.” “Suhail Rizvi: the 47-year-old 'unsocial' social media baron: When Twitter goes public in the coming weeks (2013), one of the biggest winners will be a 47-year-old financier who guards his secrecy so zealously that he employs a person to take down his Wikipedia entry and scrub his photos from the internet. In IPO, Twitter seeks to be 'anti-FB'” “Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia looks like a big Twitter winner. So do the moneyed clients of Jamie Dimon. But as you’ve-got-to-be-joking wealth washed over Twitter on Thursday — a company that didn’t exist eight years ago was worth $31.7 billion after its first day on the stock market — the non-boldface name of the moment is Suhail R. Rizvi. Mr. Rizvi, 47, runs a private investment company that is the largest outside investor in Twitter with a 15.6 percent stake worth $3.8 billion at the end of trading on Thursday (November, 2013). Using a web of connections in the tech industry and in finance, as well as a hearty dose of good timing, he brought many prominent names in at the ground floor, including the Saudi prince and some of JPMorgan’s wealthiest clients.” https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/technology/at-twitter-working-behind-the-scenes-toward-a-billion-dollar-payday.html Y’all like that Arab money? How about a dude that can call up Saudi Princes and convince them to spend? Funniest shit about I read about him: “Rizvi was able to buy only $100 million in Facebook shortly before its IPO, thus limiting his returns, according to people with knowledge of the matter.” Poor guy :( He should be fine with the 16 million PLBY shares he's going to have though :) Shuhail also has experience in the entertainment industry. He’s invested in companies like SESAC, ICM, and Summit Entertainment. He’s got Hollywood connections to blast this stuff post-merger. And he’s at least partially responsible for that whole Twilight thing. I’m team Edward btw. I really like what Suhail has done so far. He’s lurked in the shadows while Kohn is consolidating the company, trimming the fat, making Playboy profitable, and aiming the ship at modern growing markets. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-ipo-rizvi-insight/insight-little-known-hollywood-investor-poised-to-score-with-twitter-ipo-idUSBRE9920VW20131003 Ben “The Bridge” Kohn is an interesting guy. He’s the connection between Rizvi Traverse and Playboy. He’s both CEO of Playboy and was previously Managing Partner at Rizvi Traverse. Ben seems to be the voice of the Playboy-Rizvi partnership, which makes sense with Suhail’s privacy concerns. Kohn said this: “Today is a very big day for all of us at Playboy and for all our partners globally. I stepped into the CEO role at Playboy in 2017 because I saw the biggest opportunity of my career. Playboy is a brand and platform that could not be replicated today. It has massive global reach, with more than $3B of global consumer spend and products sold in over 180 countries. Our mission – to create a culture where all people can pursue pleasure – is rooted in our 67-year history and creates a clear focus for our business and role we play in people’s lives, providing them with the products, services and experiences that create a lifestyle of pleasure. We are taking this step into the public markets because the committed capital will enable us to accelerate our product development and go-to-market strategies and to more rapidly build our direct to consumer capabilities,” said Ben Kohn, CEO of Playboy. “Playboy today is a highly profitable commerce business with a total addressable market projected in the trillions of dollars,” Mr. Kohn continued, “We are actively selling into the Sexual Wellness consumer category, projected to be approximately $400 billion in size by 2024, where our recently launched intimacy products have rolled out to more than 10,000 stores at major US retailers in the United States. Combined with our owned & operated ecommerce Sexual Wellness initiatives, the category will contribute more than 40% of our revenue this year. In our Apparel and Beauty categories, our collaborations with high-end fashion brands including Missguided and PacSun are projected to achieve over $50M in retail sales across the US and UK this year, our leading men’s apparel lines in China expanded to nearly 2500 brick and mortar stores and almost 1000 digital stores, and our new men’s and women’s fragrance line recently launched in Europe. In Gaming, our casino-style digital gaming products with Scientific Games and Microgaming continue to see significant global growth. Our product strategy is informed by years of consumer data as we actively expand from a purely licensing model into owning and operating key high-growth product lines focused on driving profitability and consumer lifetime value. We are thrilled about the future of Playboy. Our foundation has been set to drive further growth and margin, and with the committed capital from this transaction and our more than $180M in NOLs, we will take advantage of the opportunity in front of us, building to our goal of $100M of adjusted EBITDA in 2025.” https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201001005404/en/Playboy-to-Become-a-Public-Company Also, according to their Form 4s, “Big” Dong Liu and “lil” Suying Liu just loaded up with shares last week. These guys are brothers and seem like the Chinese market connection. They are only 32 & 35 years old. I don’t even know what that means, but it's provocative. https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1832415.htm https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mountain-crest-acquisition-corp-ii-002600994.html Y’all like that China money? “Mr. Liu has been the Chief Financial Officer of Dongguan Zhishang Photoelectric Technology Co., Ltd., a regional designer, manufacturer and distributor of LED lights serving commercial customers throughout Southern China since November 2016, at which time he led a syndicate of investments into the firm. Mr. Liu has since overseen the financials of Dongguan Zhishang as well as provided strategic guidance to its board of directors, advising on operational efficiency and cash flow performance. From March 2010 to October 2016, Mr. Liu was the Head of Finance at Feidiao Electrical Group Co., Ltd., a leading Chinese manufacturer of electrical outlets headquartered in Shanghai and with businesses in the greater China region as well as Europe.” Dr. Suying Liu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Mountain Crest Acquisition Corp., commented, “Playboy is a unique and compelling investment opportunity, with one of the world’s largest and most recognized brands, its proven consumer affinity and spend, and its enormous future growth potential in its four product segments and new and existing geographic regions. I am thrilled to be partnering with Ben and his exceptional team to bring his vision to fruition.” https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201001005404/en/Playboy-to-Become-a-Public-Company These guys are good. They have a proven track record of success across multiple industries. Connections and money run deep with all of these guys. I don’t think they’re in the game to lose. I was going to write a couple more paragraphs about why you should have a look at this but really the best thing you can do is read this SEC filing from a couple days ago. It explains the situation in far better detail. Specifically, look to page 137 and read through their strategy. Also, look at their ownership percentages and compensation plans including the stock options and their prices. The financials look great, revenue is up 90% Q3, and it looks like a bright future. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921005986/tm2034213-12_defm14a.htm#tSHCF I’m hesitant to attach this because his position seems short term, but I’m going to with a warning because he does hit on some good points (two are below his link) and he’s got a sizable position in this thing (500k+ on margin, I think). I don’t know this guy but he did look at the same publicly available info and make roughly the same prediction, albeit without the in depth gambling or cannabis mention. You can also search reddit for ‘MCAC’ and very few relevant results come up and none of them even come close to really looking at this thing. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gOvAd6lebs452hFlWWbxVjQ3VMsjGBkbJeXRwDwIJfM/edit?usp=sharing “Also, before you people start making claims that Playboy is a “boomer” company, STOP RIGHT THERE. This is not a good argument. Simply put. The only thing that matters is Playboy’s name recognition, not their archaic business model which doesn’t even exist anymore as they have completely repurposed their business.” “Imagine not buying $MCAC at a 400M valuation lol. Streetwear department is worth 1B alone imo.” Considering the ridiculous Chinese growth as a lifestyle brand, he’s not wrong. Current Cultural Significance and Meme Value: A year ago I wouldn’t have included this section but the events from the last several weeks (even going back to tsla) have proven that a company’s ability to meme and/or gain social network popularity can have an effect. Tik-tok, Snapchat, Twitch, Reddit, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter. They all have Playboy stuff on them. Kids in middle and highschool know what Playboy is but will likely never see or touch one of the magazines in person. They’ll have a Playboy hoodie though. Crazy huh? A lot like GME, PLBY would hugely benefit from meme-value stock interest to drive engagement towards their new business model while also building strategic coffers. This interest may not directly and/or significantly move the stock price but can generate significant interest from larger players who will. Bull Case: The year is 2025. Playboy is now the world leader pleasure brand. They began by offering Playboy licensed gaming products, including gambling products, direct to consumers through existing names. By 2022, demand has skyrocketed and Playboy has designed and released their own gambling platforms. In 2025, they are also a leading cannabis brand in the United States and Canada with proprietary strains and products geared towards sexual wellness. Cannabis was legalized in the US in 2023 when President Biden got glaucoma but had success with cannabis treatment. He personally pushes for cannabis legalization as he steps out of office after his first term. Playboy has also grown their brand in China and India to multi-billion per year markets. The stock goes up from 11ish to 100ish and everyone makes big gains buying somewhere along the way. Bear Case: The United States does a complete 180 on marijuana and gambling. President Biden overdoses on marijuana in the Lincoln bedroom when his FDs go tits up and he loses a ton of money in his sports book app after the Fighting Blue Hens narrowly lose the National Championship to Bama. Playboy is unable to expand their cannabis and gambling brands but still does well with their worldwide lifestyle brand. They gain and lose some interest in China and India but the markets are too large to ignore them completely. The stock goes up from 11ish to 13ish and everyone makes 15-20% gains. TL;DR: Successful technology/e-commerce investment firm took over Playboy to turn it into a porn, online gambling/gaming, sports book, cannabis company, worldwide lifestyle brand that promotes sexual wellness, vetern access, women-ownership, minority-ownership, and “pleasure for all”. Does a successful online team reinventing an antiquated physical copy giant sound familiar? No options yet, shares only for now. $11.38 per share at time of writing. My guess? $20 by the end of February. $50 by EOY. This is not financial advice. I am not qualified to give financial advice. I’m just sayin’ I would personally use a Playboy sports book app while smoking a Playboy strain specific joint and it would be cool if they did that. Do your own research. You’d probably want to start here: WARNING - POTENTIALLY NSFW - SEXY MODELS AHEAD - no actual nudity though https://s26.q4cdn.com/895475556/files/doc_presentations/Playboy-Craig-Hallum-Conference-Investor-Presentation-11_17_20-compressed.pdf Or here: https://www.mcacquisition.com/investor-relations/default.aspx Jimmy Chill: “Get into any SPAC at $10 or $11 and you are going to make money.” STL;DR: Buy MCAC. MCAC > PLBY couple weeks. Rocketship. Moon. Position: 5000 shares. I will buy short, medium, and long-dated calls once available.
hey there. I live in California, so I know there are a few sites I cannot play at. But I'm curious as to which sites are safe to play at? Meaning, aren't in the public eye as shady.
Americas Cardroom - I think many of us are fully aware of the things that [B]joeingram1[/B] pointed out. Is this still not a safe place to play?
Ignition Poker - Many people have concerns, but nothing necessarily provable (since it is anonymous). What do y'all think about this site? Is anyone here a winning player over a long period?
BetOnline Poker - As with all 3 of these sites, this one also gets horrible reviews on Trustpilot. Although I do realize, many of those people could just be on a downswing and are tilting. But is this site worth considering?
If there are others I have missed, please let me know. I am a bit skeptical on these online poker sites, so I'd rather put my money into a site that isn't going to cheat me out of it. Whether that be bots or super users or cheaters.
GME Short Squeeze and Ryan Cohen DD for Jim Cramer, The (Man)Child Who Wandered Into the Middle of the GME-Cohen Movie 🚀 🚀 🚀
The Dude:It's like what Lenin said…you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh... Donny:I am the walrus. The Dude:You know what I'm trying to say... Donny:I am the walrus. Walter Sobchak:Shut the fuck up, Donny!V.I. Lenin!Vladimir Illanich Uleninov! Donny:What the fuck is he talking about, Dude? Hello again, GME Gang. What a fun day we had yesterday! Could it continue today? Only Melvin Capital (and maybe Ryan Cohen) knows! And an extra special hello today to our newest WSB lookie-loo, Mr. Cramer (Can I call you Jim? I’m gonna call you Jim). Now Jim, from what I’ve been able to gather, you and your Boomer stocks and your Hot Manic Takes don’t always get a lot of love around here. But that’s not all your fault, Jim. The Paste-Eating Rocket Kids are often good for a solid meme (FYI: it’s pronounced “Mee-Mee.” Feel free to use that on air without verifying). But the Rocket Kids can be a dense bunch and they’re also often one click away from Total Financial Ruin (Quick shout out to SPCE: Pleas fly again). So you have to dig a bit in here to separate the wheat from the chaff, as someone like you actually says in real life. What the fuck even is chaff, Jim? And why do all Boomers seem to think that folksy farm-based idioms are the perfect way to conclude a thought? Anyway. Those of us who watched your teevee clips last week where you reference your interest in WSB know that you, Jim Cramer, might be one of the Olds, but that you also Think Young(TM). https://www.thestreet.com/jim-cramestock-market-advice-moderna-boeing-fed-ftc-dec-15. So we’re going to do our best to help your young-thinkin’ brain find the Needle In the Haystack here so you can get All Your Ducks In a Row on GME. Because we know that you’re a long way from being Put Out to Pasture, and though you may be an out-of-touch millionaire prone to facile yammering, we now like you here, Jim—simply because you mentioned us and that made us blush a bit since we’re needy Millennials who just want our Boomer mommies and daddies to Tell Us They’re Proud of Us. So even though the Paste-Eating Rocket Kids here are often Buying A Pig in a Poke (Christ, please do not ever say that or the kids’ Mee-Mees are gonna fuck you up), we appreciate you recognizing that, every now and then, there’s something worth paying attention to over in this weird little pocket of the Interwebs. And since you’re actually telling your loyal single-finger-typin’ viewers to check out this WSB shitshow, and “if they’re running GME, then do some work on GME,” we assume you might actually be checking this shit out too, since all true Young Thinkers know that What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander. Now, is the GME play as solid as your recent recommendation to buy Bed Bath and Beyond? Who knows? That seems pretty stupid, and I would look it up myself this weekend but my nice little Saturday is already pretty full so I don’t know—I don’t know if I’ll have enough time. But I’ll tell you one thing: the GME play is a lot more fucking fun. Life in a pandemic is boring, but here in this weird WSB place, these kids like fun. And for all your Boomer weirdness, you seem like you still like to have a little fun in this Mad, Mad world of ours. So consider joining us here more often. A word of warning, though: if you don’t like all the dern cuss words we use around here, Jim, well that’s just, like, your opinion man, and we’ll have you know that the Supreme Court has roundly rejected Prior Restraint. First thing’s first: we have a bit of a bone to pick with you (now there I go). The stuff you said last week about GME as the next Blockbuster was D-U-M dumb, Jim. You were a bit out of your fucking element with that. You even made our largest shareholder and conqueror-in-waiting, Mr. Ryan Cohen, send an emoji-only tweet in response, which if you know the super nice-guy Ryan Cohen like all of us do (we actually know nothing), that is pretty much the equivalent of him bringing his dog over to micturate on your and George Sherman’s rug. Now, I myself have never been into the whole brevity thing, but I wanted to take this opportunity to get you up to speed on the GME movie you’ve wandered into. And I know you’re down with this because you told all your viewers that if WSB is talking about GME, then “make sure you know GME.” So before you say something Absolutely Mad again and Cohen sends a tweet with an even less ambiguous emoji, it’s high time that you start Making the Sure here, Jim. Just consider this to be CPT Hubbard delivering you some Orange Sunshine and turning you on to some of that Sweet, Delicious Non-Chaff Wheat you love so goddamn much. Part 1: GME’s Bonkers-Ass Short Interest Now, I’m going to lead with the most crowd-pleasing part of the story here (Get ready, Rocket Kids!), and it’s the one that you did not even seem remotely familiar with in your “Stay out of GameStop, Deadbeat!” rant last week. Maybe that was by design or maybe not. We’ll return to that, Jim. But the point here is: the short interest here is batshit insane. And not just your garden variety Boomer in Rolled Up Sleeves Ranting About Buying Estee Lauder While Hitting Buttons On The Beep-Bop-Boop Machine kind of insanity. Really and truly fucking nuts. So to TL/DR this shit for you, Jim (to use the parlance of our times): GME is themost shorted stocktrading today—by far. https://financhill.com/most-heavily-shorted-stocks-today How shorted? Well, the value of shares short exceeds the market cap of the company; there are currently more shares short than the total number of shares outstanding. And when factoring in the institutional and insider ownership, the total short percentage of float is nearly 300%. https://www.gurufocus.com/term/FloatPercentageOfTSO/GME/Float-Percentage-Of-Total-Shares-Outstanding/GameStop-Corp Even higher, actually, now that Cohen’s interest is over 10%. Now, I’m not a numbers whiz like you, but that level of short interest and the small available float seems pretty fucked up to me. Like: “how is that even legal?” fucked up. And just for a frame of reference, the third most shorted security right now is your beloved Bed Bath and Beyond, with a short percentage of float at a nice and tidy 69%. Are you starting to gather why some of us in this weird little pocket of the Interwebs are a little excited about GME? You see, as u/Jeffamazon and RodAlzmann u/Uberkikz11 and others have explained in these here corners and on the twitter machine with their top-notch DD, and as I will translate to you in lingo you can dig, the short sellers got way over their skiis on this one expecting a bankruptcy in Spring of 2020 that never came. And yet, amazingly, the short interest has only increased since then—there has effectively been no covering in the aggregate and, in fact, the short percentage has only gone up. And now, on the threshold of 2021, we all sit atop a massive powder keg wondering what is going to be the thing that finally lights this shit up. And at the end of this little missive, I’m going to tell you what I think that thing might be (Spoiler: It’s Ryan Cohen! Better start getting used to seeing his name, Jim, because this dude does not fuck around and he’s not going anywhere). https://www.reddit.com/wallstreetbets/comments/k4csaa/the_real_greatest_short_burn_of_the_century_part/ https://twitter.com/RodAlzmann https://thecollective.finance/2020/10/gamestop-gme-a-squeeze-to-44-from-14-can-be-justified-fundamentally-100-of-the-shares-are-short-watch-out/ Part 2: GameStop Isn’t Going Bankrupt and People Actually Want to Buy Shit There So, you foul mouthed little prick, a bonkers-ass short interest is neat and all, but why is Jim Cramer wrong when Jim Cramer compares GME to Blockbuster you might be asking yourself in the third person. First, the most obvious answer, Jim, which you should fucking know already: Blockbuster was nearly $1 Billion in debt and missing debt payments left and right when it was delisted way back in 2010. That was also when there was a bit of a credit crunch, if you recall, right after that whole Housing Crash Unpleasantness that you saw coming from a mile away and from which you made hundreds of millions of dollars due to your contrarian foresight—I’m sorry, I’m clearly confusing you with Christian Bale starring as Dr. Michael Burry, weirdo head of Scion Asset Management, which also holds about 1.4M shares of GME (You really gotta start looking into this stuff, Jim. This story is made for TV, man—and you Boomers were raised by TV and you turned out TV!). Also, in 2010 when Netflix is ripping and when Blockbuster was about to be delisted and bankrupt, an analyst noted the obvious fact that Blockbuster had “nothing on the horizon that makes it look like Blockbuster is going to be more profitable.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-blockbusteblockbuster-wins-debt-reprieve-forced-to-delist-idUSTRE66052720100702 But Jim, if your Blockbuster comparison has any plausibility, GameStop must have a major debt problem then, right? And yet just last month GameStop repaid $125M in debt several months ahead of time. It’s also really weird that over the past year management bought back a ton of shares, taking the OS from 102M down to just under 70M (making a short squeeze even more likely, my Rocket Children). The weirdness continues with a soon-to-be-bankrupt company holding almost $500M in cash on hand. And according to George Sherman’s “Thine Omnichannel Shalt Be The Omni-est Channel of Them All” Conference Call following Q3, by March 2021 GME will have retired a total of $500M in debt and returned $200M to shareholders through stock buy backs. I’m no expert here, and I do not presently own a Beep-Bop-Boop Machine, but that’s all pretty weird shit to be doing if you’re about to go bankrupt. No, no – I get it: who the fuck actually looks at balance sheets anyway before spouting off about what a stock is going to do? I sure as hell don’t. That’s why I follow my man u/Uberkikz11, since that dude is a GME DD Encyclopedia and was born to crunch numbers. No, when Really Smart People make the Blockbuster comparison, it’s usually just Mouth Sounds for: A B&M Store That Used to Be Popular But Now Is Not Because Technology, QED. But here even the Really Smart People might be missing something as well. They’re right in the sense that GME must use this new console cycle window and cash influx to quickly pivot to a tech-first gaming company (more on that and our boy RC shortly!), but they’re wrong on the timing and relevance of this Super Smart Insight. So fine, they’re doing ok on debt and cash. But who even goes to that 90s-Ass-Looking Cluttered Mall Geekery anymore anyways? I confess: in my darkest moments, as the short sellers manipulate the fuck out of this stock and I curse the names Bell and Sherman, I too have wondered this. But it turns out that, just like I have no idea why anyone listens to Maroon 5 or eats at Applebee’s, apparently a lot of people in America do shit that I do not. Crazy huh? So here is some pretty neat data showing us how out of touch we might be here, Jim: First, when a pretty large sample size of people were recently asked the question: which of the following stores or websites do you plan to buy holiday gifts from? The #5 response from United States Americans was none other than GameStop (Ticker, Jim: GME). Only Walmart, Amazon, Target, and Dollar Store (poor people buy gifts too, Jim) were ahead of little old GameStop. That’s higher than Nike, Macy’s, the Apple Store—and double the response of Bed Bath and Fucking Beyond in every category they surveyed. Check it: (h/t to my man u/snowk88) https://stocktwits.com/snowk88/message/260983915 That’s kinda crazy huh? See Jim, when you Think Young(TM), you really can learn something new every day. And by following our man u/snowk88 (@snowk88 over at stocktwits), I learn lots of cool shit. But guess who already knew that? The guy that wrote this bad-ass letter that identifies GME’s brand and customer data as being one of the most valuable things GME has going for it. https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/RC_Ventures_Letter_to_GameStop.pdf So now we know that Real Life People actually buy shit at GameStop here in the year of our lord 2020. But like that analyst from 2010 said about Blockbuster, there must not be anything on the horizon for GameStop to be more profitable in 2021, right? Now, I will admit that being a bit bearish on GME in December of 2020 would make more sense if, say, GameStop were the nation’s largest purveyor of limp and half-lit pumpkin spice-scented candles and we were exiting the apogee of Shitty Candle Season. But as it turns out, GameStop is currently selling basically the most sought-after items that exist in the marketplace right now—where demand for the Xbox and Ps5 is far outpacing supply and is projected to continue well into 2021. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-11-17-microsoft-expects-xbox-series-x-s-shortages-until-q2-2021 I don’t really need to get into the details on that here, because it’s pretty goddamn obvious, but I think 2020 GameStop at the precipice of a new console cycle might be in a bit of a better position than, say, 2010 Blockbuster relying on the latest Adam Sandler release to lift its sagging rental numbers. But I don’t know. Millions of people don’t watch my show looking for Candid Analysis from me and my folksy man-of-the-people-lookin’ rolled-up sleeves. Part 3:Ryan Cohen is the Sword of Damocles Hanging Over the Short Sellers’ Dumbass Heads And now we’ve gotten to the best part. It’s my favorite part of all of this, Jim, and if you give this a little time, I think it will be yours too. You see, all that corporate bla bla bla about balance sheets and console cycles and early debt repayment and overleveraged short sellers and brand recognition is neat and all—and definitely worth a second look by itself. Maybe even a little Beep-Bop-Boop on the ol’ sound machine—I don’t know your methods. But the real thing that’s about to rip all our faces off here is the business and investment decisions of a mild-mannered wunderkind named Ryan Cohen. Now you can revisit my prior epistle if you want to know a bit more about the involvement of Mr. Ryan Cohen in Le AffairGameStop. https://www.reddit.com/wallstreetbets/comments/kakxrm/gme_tribe_a_story_about_how_ryan_cohen_is_about/. My fly-by-night theory of his lawyer’s possible use of the consent solicitation could have probably marinated for another day, but the thrust of my argument there was that Cohen and his attorney have been laying the groundwork to come after GameStop for a while now. And that Cohen was likely emboldened by the humiliating, lame-ass CC performance by some dude with a mid-century comic-strip sounding name that we’ll all soon know only as: The Guy With the Punchable Face Who Used to Be CEO of GameStop. But here is where things get really interesting. This is a story in the making, Jim, for fucks sake - take notes! This Monday, on December 21, Mr. Ryan Cohen filed a revised 13D showing that last week he started buying a shit-ton of shares—starting on Tuesday December 15th—which is the day after the stock price inexplicably plunged on Monday the 14th and the very same day you were yammering on the teevee about GME being Blockbuster! Instead of listening to you, however, Cohen started buying more GME shares (super-sleuth dark pool watchers u/rgrAi and u/snowk88 noticed in real-time that there was some very large accumulation taking place), which culminated in the big reveal that Cohen purchased a total of 2,501,000 additional shares last week—500,000 of which were purchased on Friday December 18, 2020 at the price of $16.02 a share. Ryan Cohen is still the single largest shareholder of GME with 9,001,000 shares in total, taking his ownership of GME above the 10% threshold from 9.98% to 12.9%. And so he apparently thinks that the floor for his investment is $16.02 per share. Is he still buying? We’ll know soon. But yesterday seemed like a little taste of what it might look like if a large buyer steps in to prevent short sellers from manipulating all of my nervous little Rocket Children here and their delicate little paper hands. There was another thing we learned from this 13D filing: Ryan Cohen has apparently hired a new attorney and law firm. Instead of the great Christopher Davis of Kline Kaplan, now Ryan Cohen is represented by Ryan P. Nebel, a partner with Olshan Frome Wolosky, LLP. Now, if you’re familiar with my prior ramblings, you might wonder if I was a bit confused, and maybe even a little sad, at this sudden change from my man C. Davis. And you might be a little right. But then the wonder of the internet allowed me to learn a bit about these new lawyers. And holy shit, things are about to get fun. Now, I liked what I knew about Chris Davis and he seems like a genuine bad ass activist attorney. But the folks at Olshan Frome and Wolosky, LLP are Next Level Players and really seem tailor-made for this exact situation. First off, Olshan is ranked as the top global lawfirm for Activist Attorneys. https://www.olshanlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/Bloomberg%20Activism%20League%20Tables%20H12020.pdf (H/t @flummoxed at stocktwits). They seem to be the go-to law firm for major proxy battles initiated by activist investors. But possibly even more important is that Olshan is the same firm that represented Hestia and Permit in their successful proxy battle earlier this year to appoint two new directors to the GME Board. I’m not going into the fine details of that, because this is already a bit of a long-form Idiot’s New Yorker article, but GameStop just went through a proxy fight last year with Activist Investors Hestia Capital and Permit Capital, which resulted in two Board seats for our shareholder buds from Hestia and Permit. So, it’s reasonable to assume that the attorneys at Olshan might know their way around GameStop at this point and where the pressure points are here. http://www.globallegalchronicle.com/hestia-capital-and-permit-capitals-two-new-directors-to-the-gamestop-board/ https://www.olshanlaw.com/resources-mentions-HestiaCapital-PermitCapital-GameStop-BoardofDirectors-ShareholderActivism.html And if you follow u/snowk88 over at stocktwits (@snowk88)— you’d also find a wealth of DD on how Olshan rolls when entering these activist-investor-replaces-dumbass-boards-and-CEOs type disputes. To bottom line it: they get it fucking done. https://stocktwits.com/snowk88/message/266158534 https://stocktwits.com/snowk88/message/266155112 https://stocktwits.com/snowk88/message/266153175 But what else did we learn from the 13D? We learned that Ryan Cohen is definitely not going anywhere any time soon. Specifically, the filing notes that RC Ventures intends to continue to engage in discussions with GameStop’s board “regarding means to drive stockholder value, including through changes to the composition of the board and other corporate governance enhancements." And while RC Ventures “desires to come to an amicable resolution with [GameStop, it] will not hesitate to take any actions that it believes are necessary to protect the best interests of all stockholders.” I really like that last part, don’t you? And although I thought his November 16th letter was pretty goddamn clear, this 13D just ratcheted up the transparency level here. In sum, Ryan Cohen has all of our backs and he’s going to replace this Board and Sherman with people that are on the level and that will help implement his vision. And now seems like a good time to return to those “Ryan Cohen: Boy Genius” articles that were definitely NOT part of a well-coordinated pre-hostile takeover media campaign initiated earlier this year. I think there might be a few things in those articles that Mr. Cohen wanted all of us shareholders (as well as the short sellers and the Board he’s about to replace) to really and truly understand. Recall also that Cohen is not one for diversification or for playing it safe. So here’s a few choice nuggets for you to ponder: *** Bloomberg, June 2020: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-05/chewy-founder-cashes-out-bets-on-apple-wells-fargo · "It's too hard to find, at least for me, what I consider great ideas," he says. "When I find things I have a lot of conviction in, I go all-in." · Cohen uses the word “conviction” a lot. He says it’s something he learned from his father, who ran a glassware importing business in Montreal where Cohen grew up. “He taught me how to block the noise from the masses,” says Cohen. “To have a point of view and have conviction and not waver.” · He wouldn’t, however, recommend his [non-diversified] investment approach to everyone. “You need to have the temperament to block the noise,” he says. “Sometimes it feels like a roller coaster.” · He likens his obsessive focus on building Chewy to his approach to stock picking. "I don't want to swing for a single," he says. *** You hear that, Jim? Our man Cohen likes idioms too! But fuck those farm idioms, Jim – we’re upgrading to the Sportsball kind now. So what’s the takeaway here? I’d say that Cohen has his Eye On The Ball and that it’s time for all short sellers and the Board to Throw in The Towel because Ryan Goddamn Cohen likes to Take the Bull By The Horns and will ensure that he Hits a Homerun for shareholders that believe in his vision. Here’s a few more things Mr. Cohen wants all of us to know: *** Forbes, August 2020: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2020/08/16/entrepreneur-chewy-founder-ryan-cohen-shares-his-best-advice/?sh=41e1370e5840 · “For me, each no sounded like they just didn’t understand my vision. It was frustrating at times, but never discouraging. Those ‘no’s never made me doubt my strategy – it was the opposite. I was motivated by all the rejections and they just got me fired up.” · “I understood that thinking big was likely going to be misunderstood along the way. I’m contrarian by nature, so being misunderstood often validates what I’m doing. It wasn’t until Chewy boxes were on doorsteps across the country that the bulk of investors started to recognize our formula.” · “[M]y biggest risk would have been not taking risk. The risk of going head-to-head against Amazon. The risk of insourcing fulfillment. The risk of building a company in Florida rather than a popular tech hub. The risk of spending $3 million a month on TV ads, more than Home Depot HD -0.1%'s budget. The risk of hiring expensive executives even though we weren’t profitable. These decisions were some of the most controversial and required me being comfortable betting against conventional wisdom, and were often contrary to the advice of my board. Suffice it to say, I was not the most popular board member.” · “Dad never swayed when he believed in something. I never compromised my vision, regardless how many investors turned me down I was not going to give up on building Chewy into the world’s biggest online pet retailer. I love to be challenged, and I’m flexible on details, but I’m never willing to give up.” *** Goddamn it, Ryan. I was done having children but now you’ve forced me into getting back on that train just so I can name this future child Ryan Fucking Cohen. Thanks a lot, asshole. But to return to my point: are those the statements of a man that seems likely to walk away at this point? Or is Cohen trying to tell us all to get ready because he is going All In on this shit? So where does this leave us? After a huge week where Cohen buys 2.5M more shares and then the SP skyrockets to $20 yesterday on that news? Well, this is where I want to tip my cap to my man Justin Dopierala over at Seeking Alpha and allow him to conclude this section. He, along with his pal Dmitriy Kozin have been pretty clear-eyed on all this shit for a while now and they both deserve some credit. And I know I gave my main man Justin a bit of a hard time in my last novella, but the dude is sharp as hell and helped a lot of us see the forest through the trees here. And you should also definitely invite him to join your poker nights (seriously: check out the dude’s tweet in response to our own Rod Alzmann’s introduction of the #WeWantCohen hashtag right after the Q3 call debacle). https://twitter.com/DOMOCAPITAL/status/1336446055685230592. You have no comment on a potential takeover involving Ryan Cohen, Justin after your hour-long googly-eyed call together? Can’t believe you’re just preemptively leaving the WSJ and Bloomberg hanging like that. Justin, I love you dude, but if I’m holding pocket Kings I’m folding after that tweet because that twinkle in your eye lets me know you’re about to drop two Aces on my ass. Anyway. Here is what our man Dopierala thinks might happen here soon (and he called this way back on November 17th- and sorry - no links here, per the mods, as apparently no Alpha must ever be Sought from these parts): I think a very likely outcome at this point is a majority slate next shareholder meeting where Cohen takes over BOD and then makes himself CEO. A majority slate proxy battle would require all institutions to call in shares and would force a squeeze. We’re intrigued, Justin. Please continue: If Ryan Cohen successfully negotiates a purchase price with the Board then the shareholders will have to vote on it. Unlike the proxy battle where Hestia and Permit were running a minority slate of directors, an offer to purchase GameStop would force institutions like Vanguard and Blackrock to call in their shares. By doing so, the shorts would be forced to close out their positions and GameStop would finally have the greatest short squeeze of all-time. Ironically, Cohen could use this opportunity to sell all of his shares and use the proceeds to entirely fund the acquisition of GameStop going down as the first person in history to acquire a billion dollar company... for absolutely nothing. In fact, his acquisition price would be less than zero. And now is when I get to speculate on what I think is going to happen here. But I do not necessarily think Cohen is going to put an offer to buy GME to take private. That would definitely trigger a MOASS, but I’m not sure I see it given the attorneys he’s hired and his recent buys up to $16 and the amount of cash that would take. Like Dopierala’s first comment, though, I think Cohen is going to nominate directors to replace nearly the entire Board of Directors with a vote happening at the annual meeting and once that Board is in place, they’ll appoint Cohen as CEO. And as Justin notes, if he nominates a majority slate of directors, shares will have to be called in to vote. And this vote and proxy battle will make the prior minority slate Hesita/Permit battle, and the tiny short squeeze that took place when that happened, look tame by comparison. Now everyone: get your calendars out. Because the date to nominate directors here is in Mid-March, and my super-smart corporate lawyer buds inform me that it’s standard practice to file about 7-10 days prior. So, if this actually happening, we should be seeing something on this by early March. But even though early March is now the mark on the wall, today’s insane price action caused me to think about all of this a bit harder and speculate a bit more. And a major h/t to my buds on the stocktwits board, especially u/rgrAi (@amarbar) for all the sharp analysis on this. But if you were Ryan Cohen and you knew this company was hugely undervalued and you had a high level of CONVICTION here and also knew you needed shareholder votes to sweep out these dumbasses and implement your vision—then how would you play this with the short interest here as crazy as it is? I’d keep buying. Why? Well, lots of reasons, you smart alecks. First, so I have more guaranteed votes (duh?). Second, so that when the building starts burning and short hedge funds run for the exits they find that a mild-mannered Millennial with super-good ideas has sealed off all the doors and windows. That’s gruesomely delicious, isn’t it? Why else, CPT? Well, finally, and maybe most importantly, because I would want to excite and delight all my fellow shareholders by triggering a slow-burn short squeeze, raising the SP significantly, so that I can once again make the point (as he did in the Nov 16 letter) that the incompetent management that caused a HUGE drop in SP following that utterly incompetent Q3 call and the shelf registration, had nothing to do with the SP increase that again happened once Cohen announced his intent and started buying. Not the console cycle, not the cost containment measures, not the buybacks and not the early debt reduction. Nope: rightly or wrongly, shareholders will see Ryan Cohen buying shares and the corresponding SP increase and everyone—especially all new buyers who are delighted at their good fortune and swept up by Ryan Cohen Fever 2021—will start getting #WeWantCohen tattoos on their ass they’ll be so happy. And all of us, newly enriched by Ryan Cohen’s Big Canadian Balls and tactical brilliance, will crawl over glass to vote for him over The Boomer Artist Formally Known As GameStop’s CEO. I could be very wrong on this last point in particular, but if we start seeing 13Ds drop here shortly, things should get very fun very quickly. Part 4: A Return to Our Short-Squeeze-to-Da-Moon Discussion: Who’s Side Are You Fucking On, Jim? Now, Jim, given the fast friendship we’re creating here, and all we’ve been through over the past 5000 words, I hesitate in bringing this up. But we’ve all seen the video, Jim. You know the one I’m talking about. Yes, the one where you actually tell the truth about how short selling hedge funds manipulate the market to knock down the price of perfectly good securities that many hard-working people invest in—many normal-ass people all assuming they wont ever have to Point Where On The Dolly The Invisible Hand of the Economy Touched Them. But that’s not life now is it Jim? And fuck those poor-ass rubes for not knowing how to play the game with you sophisticated Masters of the Universe, amirite? https://www.reddit.com/dashpay/comments/93evx4/jim_cramer_reveals_dirty_tricks_short_sellers_use/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/cramer-market-manipulato So where are you in this whole GME/Cohen story, Jim? You candidly (gleefully?) acknowledge that a prime strategy that shorts deploy is to spread negative rumors that are then amplified by Big Smart Trustworthy Financial Media Titans like yourself to shake out unsophisticated retail players like my Rocket Kids here—who because of their tiny paper hands and you mean short selling brutes often subsist on paste and paste alone. So for this particular security, are you the one helping with the manipulation and actively creating the “new truth” or are you just one of the Useful Idiots that these short sellers use to manipulate with an anodyne, TV media-ready comparison like: GameStop Is The Next Blockbuster? And how in the fuck does this fit into your Think Young(TM) project, Jim? Because if there is one thing that we over at WSB fucking hate, it’s a bunch of Manipulative Short Selling Boomer Fuckwads. Why on earth would a hip Young Thinker like you want to be included in that crew, Jim? And I know we’re all friends here now, Jim, but I need to push back a bit on some of what you said in that video in such a cavalier whatareyagonnado manner. So if I understand you, short and distort and fomenting negative reactions from retail players based on deliberately false narratives is illegal, but still easy as fuck to do "because the SEC doesn't understand it." But you fucking do understand it, Jim! So why are you helping those short and distorters break the law here? Why are you being such an obtuse dumbshit? Just check out what happens to the borrow rate and short selling every time there is any good news for GME: https://stocktwits.com/Slantedangles/message/264519950 (h/t @slantedangles). This manipulation isn't just happening with GME; it is happening everywhere. It’s baked into the cake. And that is pretty fucked up that we all just accept it because whatareyagonnado. I think that one thing that those of us who truly do Think Young(TM) have a hard time understanding is at what point in your lives do you Boomers all finally come to realize that it’s maybe time to stop playing the game like you have been? What point do you finally have enough where doing the right thing matters more than getting paid? Maybe start by telling the truth more often—and maybe don’t go out of your way to help those corrupt-ass hedge fund managers who continually fuck over average people merely because they were stupid enough to believe you all. What contempt you Masters of the Universe have for all of them—for all of us. There is a bigger story here on GME and this out-of-control short interest (naked shorting, counterfeit shares) http://counterfeitingstock.com/CS2.0/CounterfeitingStock.html than even Ryan Cohen and the inevitable short squeeze we’re about to witness here. And it begins and ends with people like you and Melvin Capital and Bank of America not giving a fuck about the rules while thinking you’re smarter than the rest of us who do—but who lack power to do anything about it. And you know what? Maybe you are smarter than us. You certainly know how to play this game pretty well, as that video shows. But if I know my old school 1980s movies like I think I do, this is usually the part of the story where the rag-tag kids from across the tracks come over to show you hubristic rich fuckheads what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass. Now I myself have never dabbled in pacifism, Jim, so this isn’t too much of a stretch for me, but seeing that video of yours and seeing the insane short interest and all the manipulation here makes me want to burn the whole corrupt system to the ground—while barricading the doors to trap in those arrogant-ass short sellers who lie and cheat and distort to profit off average people. And though I’m certain that this larger battle is not driving him, maybe that result is one that Ryan Cohen wouldn’t mind too. Though he’s a polite Canadian and would probably just let everyone know that he’s not really mad, just disappointed. But me? I’m an Angry American and I say: Block the fucking doors and windows and light that shit up. So maybe this epistle will be useful for your Think Young(TM) project and cause you to reflect a bit more on what’s really going on out there with this whole GME thing and the likely illegal shorting that has driven the short percentage of float to these insane levels, drawing in new retail shorts too stupid to know what’s even happening. Or maybe it wont cause you to reflect in the slightest (count me as one of those cynical types that see your overtures to WSB as a transparent play for greater market share from the Young Crowd since your old-ass audience is dying and/or switching to bonds). But in a few months when all the Billy Ray Valentines and Louis Winthorpes assembled here are toasting each other in stupid shirts on a white-sand beach somewhere, we do not want you to look back on your knee-jerk boomer-ass dismissal of GME and your Useful Idiot blathering with that same tinge of regret and longing you feel when you look at a pre-Client 9 picture of you and your old roomie: warm-toes-and-hosiery-enthusiast E. Spitzer, Esq. In conclusion: GME = Blockbuster comparisons are for Simps and Corrupt Short-and-Distorters. Don’t be like them, Jim. And to my Rocket Children: the only weapon we wield in this stupid game is Diamond Hands with a float like this. Toughen the fuck up. And Happy Holidays everyone. --CPT Hubbard TL/DR: Jim Cramer likes farm-based idioms and apparently being a useful idiot to scummy short selling hedge funds. DD on the GME turnaround is solid and overleveraged short sellers should be shitting themselves. Ryan Cohen, our polite, hard-working Canadian benefactor is about to rip all our fucking faces off and trigger a MOASS. Probably even by early March, if that time is good for you (he’ll text before he comes). And fuck infinite regress: It’s rockets all the way down here. 🚀🚀🚀 Now: diamond hands, motherfuckers. **This is a shitpost and is only to be used as investment and life advice for Mr. Jim Cramer, Esq.
How would you rank ALL 11 Scream Killers from WORST to BEST and WHY?
Hey everyone! I want to know how everyone would rank all eleven Scream killers from worst to best & why? This list will be controversial, so please let me know your thoughts. This list isn't based on facts, popularity, or other polls. For me, I used seven factors to rank the killers. I used kills (uniqueness & count), intelligence, plan, motive (being specific & their overall reason), treachery, character (acting & role), & surprise as factors to determine who I think are the worst & best killers. Please don't downvote just because your killer isn't my favorite. Here is my list, & feel free to leave your opinions in the comments below & your ranking. 11. Charlie Walker (Scream 4): I'm pretty sure most fans think Charlie is THE WORST Scream Killer in the entire franchise, & to that I retort, I think you are 100% correct! All the other ten killers on this list are WAY better than him in every way, shape, or form. I don't think I even have to explain why he's the worst, but I'll do it anyway. There’s not much going for Charlie as his character sucked. He was so uninteresting throughout the whole movie, & I just didn't care for him. He was just there. He was bland, boring, & uninteresting. Culkin's acting was probably the worst of all the killers. As a killer, Charlie is one of the dumbest killers in the entire franchise. Jill easily manipulated him, & he was whipped around like a dog. The only good intelligent thing he did was making the murders all traceable to Trevor. I wasn’t shocked when he was the killer as I suspected he was it when they first showed him. Charlie also had a wack plan. He was just going to follow Jill's plan & look at how that turned out. He got whipped, hard. Also, his motive REALLY sucked. We don't know why he killed who he did, but it was hinted in the movie that Jill seduced him & convinced him to murder his classmates for fame. That's wack. I think the only pro I can give him is his kills. Behind the mask, Charlie is pretty cool as he is one of the most brutal killers of the entire franchise, stabbing Robbie & Olivia brutally. That’s the only credit I can give him. 10. Stu Macher (Scream): I know many people will bash me for this & say things like, "You're putting Stu at the bottom? He’s the original!” Well, after rewatching the Scream series, I realized Stu isn't that good of a killer. Stu might be the dumbest killer to come out of the Scream franchise. He relied on his accomplice Billy & was just following orders. He was just the muscle, & THAT’S IT! He's just there because Billy needed someone to get the suspicion off of him. I honestly guessed he was the killer from the first scene he was in. He was very obvious to me. He also didn't have a plan. He was just there & just followed Billy's orders like the lackey he was. Also, the execution of the plan really sucked. Stabbing yourself before killing Sidney was very stupid of them to do that. Also, his motive, while kind of understandable, really sucked. He was just peer pressured, like Charlie. It's possible, though, that Billy manipulated Stu to kill Casey, dumping Stu for Steve, or it's just that Stu wanted revenge, so that's "understandable" to a degree. However, it’s just that Stu seemed very unintelligent, just following orders from his accomplice. You may be wondering, why does Stu rank over Charlie? It's easy—his character. Matthew's character is just so interesting. He was funny, charismatic, & I felt like Stu was very interesting. Matthew Lilliard killed it, literally. Matthew's performance was impeccable throughout the whole movie. One pro I have to say is his kills, with him infamously killing Casey & Steve in that iconic opening & him putting Kenny on the roof of Gale's car was badass. That was awesome. I thought he was unintelligent, dimwitted, & was just the muscle. However, Matthew's character & acting are the best out of any Scream killer I have ever seen. He deserved an Oscar for that! 9. Billy Loomis (Scream): Yes, Billy was the original. Skeet did nail the performance. He should be #1, right? Well, to be honest, I rewatched the Scream series & realized that he's just not that good of a killer. Honestly, I thought Billy was just like the average killer. Vengeful, angry, aggressive, & basic. First of all, he had the least kills than Stu. He had only three kills & his kills weren't unique. Using a garage door was cool as hell, but his kills are pretty tame & non-brutal with Himbry's non-bloody stab wounds & Tatum's simple yet effective garage stab. Also, Maureen's murder was offscreen, so that hurts him even more. He has one of the least kill counts of the entire franchise, which is crazy considering he's the movie's big bad. Also, his surprise factor is one of the low points. Being very obvious would trick the audiences into believing he can't be the killer, & it worked on most, but Billy has this aura that just oozes "I'm a killer." This hurts him because Sidney even suspected him for the majority of the movie until he got stabbed. His intelligence was very on par with Stu's as they stabbed each other before they finished the job. That was very unintelligent of them, & it was BILLY'S IDEA! I do think successfully avoiding the law for a year was pretty smart, & framing Cotton for the murders was pretty smart too, but killing again a year later just was dumb. A great thing about Billy is Skeet Ulrich. Skeet's acting was terrific, & Matthew & Skeet's performances are triumphs. Skeet's reveal stole the show along with his creepy performance of a killer. I think the switch from a cool & caring boyfriend to a psychopathic killer was really amazing. Although he isn't as established as some of the other roles, nor does he have a lot of screen-time, he was a cool character that I liked & wished I saw a lot more of him. He also fooled Sidney & manipulated her into not only sleeping with him but caring for him too. He betrayed not only her but Randy, Tatum & maybe even wanted Stu to die too. His motive was kind of understandable, as well. I'm not condoning his actions, but I understand where he is coming from. He killed Maureen because she broke up his family, killed Himbry to get people out of the house, & he killed Tatum to stop Sidney from leaving the party. I don't know why he wanted to kill Sidney, but he probably saw Sidney like her mother & wanted to kill her, or maybe Roman convinced Billy that Sidney should learn what it's like for her parents to suffer just as he suffered. I also think his main reason was that he wanted to break up the Prescott family for ruining the Loomis family. 8. Beth (Scream: Resurrection): Some may be asking, why does she rank over Billy? It's easy-her kills. She was one of the most unique killers using weapons such as a knife, syringe, bone saw, fire, alcohol, trash spear, gun, & ax. Although she has an average number of kills of 7, many of them were original, brutal, & unique. She is also one of the most treacherous killers in the entire franchise. She betrayed her whole friend circle, including Marcus, Liv, Amir, Kym, Manny, Shane, & her accomplice Jay, which gives her high treachery points. She was really talented at manipulation. She also killed people who cared about her. Killing Manny & Shane were horrible, but Amir was just cold. Her role was also very interesting as we never saw a goth type killer before, so that was a cool role, & Beth is easily ONE of the BEST parts of that season. Her part was very interesting, & I wish we saw more of her. I figured out she was the killer in Episode 3 with lighter for me personally, but I think she was surprising to most, so I have to give her credit for fooling some people who watched the series. I honestly think those are all the pros for her because, frankly, she has A-LOT of weak points. First off, her motive really sucked. It was ABSOLUTE TRASH. She easily had the WORST MOTIVE in the entire franchise. Her reason was that she was born evil, & she wanted to become a better monster than Jason & Michael. That's so narcissistic of you talking about some of the greats in horror. Nobody will recognize Beth. At least, Charlie had some reason to get fame, as he was pressured, but Beth takes the cake for the worst. Although Beth didn't come across as very smart, she's intelligent that half of the killers on this list. She was manipulative but reckless & only did things to further her own agenda. She knows her way around horror movies & integrated herself into Marcus's life. I give her intelligence points for killing Jay as she is aware of self-preservation, but that's it as far as her intelligence goes. Also, her plan was very confusing to me. She wants to prove to everyone she's the best killer. How are you going to do that if you get away with the murders? She had no plan. She just went with Liv inside the library to find the killer, which I thought was weird. She had no endgame. Yes, she framed Jay successfully, but Marcus, Liv, & Kym know that Jay was alive, & there was a Ghostface recording Jay, which made no sense considering if you are going to frame the guy, then why are there stab wounds on Jay's chest? Who killed him? There would be an ongoing investigation. She had one of the worst plans in the franchise. Also, nothing against Giorgia Whigham, but damn, she sucked as an actress in the show. When Beth revealed herself to be the killer, her lines were SO FUCKING ANNOYING. I didn't care for any of the Season 3 cast members, but although Beth was the most compelling & captivating, the actress who played her could have been written better lines & could have been more convincing. 7. Mrs. Loomis (Scream 2): I know many people are rolling their eyes at my list, but I'd like to tell you exactly why Debbie is 7th. She’s an intelligent woman who recognizes self-preservation. She killed her accomplice not only due to him being crazy with the motive, but she planned on framing him for the murders, & she didn't want the chance of getting caught or killed. She created an alter-ego & alias so no one could ever find her, lost weight, cut her hair, & look like a different person for no one to recognize her. Her motive was also one of the best ones in the entire franchise. Her main reason for killing is to get revenge on Sidney & the other murder spree survivors for killing Billy. Although it was mainly Sidney, I’m pretty sure she believed that everyone who survived in Billy’s spree was responsible for her son’s death, which is understandable. Also, she killed Randy because he made fun of Billy, which is understandable to a degree because anyone who “bullied” or bad-mouthed their child would most likely hurt them. I think it’s still an excellent motive to kill Sidney, Randy, & the others. Her plan was almost successful. She should have just shot Sidney, & then she would have gotten away with it, but except she just stayed too long talking. Framing Mickey & changing her looks completely was reasonable & practical. However, during the final showdown, she should have shot Sidney. She couldn’t even fool Cotton, who would never do anything to hurt Sidney. She had a good plan but didn’t fulfill it to the fullest extent. Another great thing about Debbie is Laurie Metcalf’s portrayal of Debbie. I didn’t like her before she revealed herself, but after, Laurie was excellent. Although I wasn’t fond of her character, the acting of the character was a great highlight. She was very convincing as a mother who had to kill her son’s killer, & I think Laurie was exceptional. Lastly, I think that she was the most surprising killer in the entire franchise. When Debbie revealed herself to be the killer, I was dumbfounded. I thought she was such a minor character that I didn’t even consider her being the killer. This will forever change my perception of the characters that are revealed in Scream. Some cons of her are that she’s easily one of the worst characters in the Scream franchise. She’s so minor in the film, & we basically know nothing about her except she is a journalist. I found her character unimportant. Also, she didn’t betray anyone. Now yes, she betrayed Mickey, but that was it as far as betrayal goes, which is a weak point for her. Another con is her kills. She only killed one person in broad daylight, & it was very sloppy of her to do that, dragging Randy into the van & stabbing him. She was also very clumsy in costume, always tripping over people, & she wasn’t really in the outfit that much, aside from Randy’s murder, Sidney’s attack, & Gale’s chase scene. This hurts her because she isn’t in the movie as much either. 6. Mickey Altieri (Scream 2): I know Mickey is a fan favorite, & I think he is a good killer, but he isn't the best. His motive really sucked & is one of the worst I've ever seen. His reason was that he wanted to get caught for being a killer, say that he's a victim of horror movies being a cause of violence, & wanted to get acquitted of all charges. Yes, it’s probably the most interesting motive of all the Scream killers, but it's very farfetched. Even with a defense team like Mickey said, there would be no way a jury would find him not guilty. Also, Mickey doesn’t seem like a smart guy. I'll give him credit for knowing stuff about horror, filming the murders, & even integrating himself to become friends with Sidney & the others, but he didn't really do anything smart. He was just so reckless for coming up with such a dumb motive, & he's an idiot for drawing too slow with a gun. Also, Mickey is one of the least surprising killers of the franchise. When he was revealed to be the killer, I was shocked, because I didn't know who he was. It took me around a minute to finally put it together. The guy was literally in a scene 45 minutes before his reveal. He's low in the surprise factor because he wasn't even in for the last half of the movie. Even though some might have been shocked, he was MIA for most of the film, making him the most likely suspect. Also, he had a bad plan. I do give him credit for improvising & being cold-blooded most of the time, but he should have stayed down! Because his motive sucked, this is a hindrance to his plan because NO JURY would believe that, & you're a fool to think otherwise. Also, since his boss betrayed him, this hinders him more because Debbie was ALWAYS planning on killing him, making his plan even worse. Now, some pros. Mickey's kills? Fantastic! Killing Phil, Maureen, Cici, the cops, Hallie & Derek was very impressive. He also had a kill count of 7 people, killing almost every single person in Scream 2, besides Randy. Mickey was also a somewhat treacherous killer. He betrayed his own best friend, girlfriend, & Sidney too. He also had a unique diversity of weapons using his classic buck knife, car, a pipe, & a gun, which was pretty cool for an average slasher. His character was also really interesting. I was really impressed with the role Mickey had. He had this impressive knowledge of horror movies, which made him similar to Randy. Also, can I mention Timothy Olyphant acting? Despite him being a new actor at the time, he was very impressive, & I thought Timothy Olyphant was compelling as a cold-blooded killer. His acting was superb, & his presence as Mickey was very cool. Despite him being a sidekick, he definitely came through as a great Ghostface. 5. Jay Elliot (Scream: Resurrection): I know many people hated Scream: Resurrection & hate Tyga for some reason. Please don't place him last or be biased to put him last/low just because you hate him, hate the season, hate his casting in the show, or because he's black. What I am going to talk about is why Jay is 5th. It’s his motive. To me, the foundation of a great killer is a motive & why this person is killing. Usually, horror villains go on to kill other people for random reasons. However, Jay actually had a fantastic motive, & I think he has the BEST MOTIVE out of ALL the Scream killers. It’s easily the most understandable & coherent. I really find Jay tragic as he lost his mom, step-brother, & father due to Marcus’s actions, & I really felt for him. In fact, I was siding with him more than Marcus, & it's a shame as I was rooting for Jay. I think it's better than all the other revenge for killing & abandonment motives, as, with Debbie, her son was a killer, while Deion was innocent & did nothing wrong. Jay killed Tommy Jenkins because he stole Marcus’s candy & indirectly killed Deion. He killed Avery Collins because he was a racist asshole who hated black people, & Jay got rid of one less racist in the world, & he killed Hookman because he killed Deion. I think Jay had some really savage & awesome kills. He killed Tommy by stabbing his throat & suffocating him with a plastic bag, threw Avery off a balcony & onto a metal spike, & crushed Hookman with a trash compactor. Although Jay has a small kill count of 3 people, the kills were a great highlight of him as a killer. Another great highlight was his acting. Honestly, I thought Tyga was surprisingly good as Jay. Look, he isn't really an actor, but I think Tyga killed the gangster role in Scream. It was pretty convincing & well thought out. I was very wary about Tyga's casting in the show, as rappers rarely work in horror movies, but I think Tyga worked well as a gangster, & he did it well. I thought Tyga was pretty good in the acting & was more convincing than a quarter of the franchise's killers, as some of the killers come off corny, boring, or lackluster. I really liked how Tyga played the tension between Jay & Deion well, & it's in a way where you can't be sure if it is normal sibling friction or something more sinister. I really feel bad for Tyga, because unfortunately for him, roles are very limited due to what he is represented as, as we can only see him as a gangster. I hope Tyga can get represented for more roles. Although Jay doesn't come off as smart, I think he is! I think he's smarter than half of the killers on this list. Jay is probably the sanest killer in the entire franchise. He literally planned Hookman & Tommy's death since he was a child, & it was eight years in the making, & that's dedication! He recognizes self-preservation & was going to tell the cops that Beth was the killer, but unfortunately for him, Jay was screwed by Beth, but he screwed Beth even worse than she screwed him by taking her down along with him. In a way, he killed Beth without even touching her. Revealing your accomplice even before the actual reveal takes balls & drawing it at the right moment is some serious brain work. Another great pro to him is his plan & how he almost got away with the murders. He killed the three people he thought deserved it, & two of those people were victims he planned ever since he was a child. His plan was cooked up the longest & was about 80% successful, & probably the 5th most successful plan out of all the killers. He planned to sell Beth out to the cops & already did before she killed him. In regards to the surprise factor, I didn't expect him to be the killer. I was really shocked since he was stabbed since I felt his stabbing attack was more genuine than Billy's, which it actually was. It took him off the suspect list because he was murdered & because the call to him sounded more convenient & realistic. I also like how he was a red-herring but ended up being the killer in the end. Also, I must applaud the writers for making Jay the first black killer in the franchise. Actors of color usually die first in a horror movie, but I like how they made him a villain & one of the last to die. Some flaws are he didn't betray anyone except his family, which consisted of Marcus, his father, mother, & Beth. Also, in regards to his character, we don't really see much of it. However, I like his gangster role in Scream. I've never seen anything like that before, which was really inventive, but I wish he were in the show more instead of just 30 minutes. Unfortunately, Jay wasn't really surprising, at least to what I have seen online. However, he gets points for me, not expecting him to be the killer as I was shocked. I really hope we can get the representation of more actors of color in horror productions. 4. Piper Shaw (Season 1): Piper was honestly a good killer in my mind. Some pros are her kills. She has a relatively average number of kills with a total of 6. She had cool kills with killing Will, Nina, Tyler & Riley. Also, she’s one of the most intelligent killers of the franchise. She spent years in an orphanage, yet she became one of the smartest killers out there. She made people believe that Brandon’s child was a boy & almost framed the sketchy Seth Branson. She also created another highly intelligent killer, the heinous Kieran Wilcox. The only foolish thing she did was not bringing any firearms to her final showdown. Usually, in the last act, killers use guns to kill their victims, but Piper didn’t get any guns to kill Emma or Maggie, even though she knew Emma had a knife behind her back. Another great pro of Piper is her plan. It was almost successful & is probably one of the most successful plans, ranking in the top 3. I think Piper had a really great motive as she was left in an orphanage where she was abandoned by Maggie & became jealous of Emma's life. The reasons for killing specific people were “understandable.” She killed Tyler, Nina, Riley, & Will to torture Emma, killed Deputy Roberts to frame Seth Branson for the crimes & Grayson because she wanted to get the witnesses/partygoers out of the party. Another great thing about Piper is the number of people she betrayed. She betrayed Audrey, Emma, Noah, Brooke, Jake, & Clark. Lastly, a great thing about Piper was her surprise factor. I thought she was one of the most surprising killers in the franchise. I wasn’t shocked when she took off her mask because I could tell it was Piper at the dock, but I wasn’t even sure who the killer was until Episode 9. I was always bouncing between Seth, Piper, & Kieran. I give the writers props for making her being “attacked” & eliminating her as a suspect. All & all, these factors make her a really great killer in my mind. Like Jay, we never really saw her character all that much, but I did like the reporter role she had, & like Jay, Piper was just not someone I was whole-heartedly invested in whenever I saw her. She was kind of a background character like him. I think Amelia is great, but the acting Piper had before & after her reveal was not good. I think it was because of the cringe-worthy lines she was given. She was clearly supposed to be an obnoxious, snarky reporter trying to find the truth about the Brandon James storyline, but the dramatic lines about sexism & coffee kind of turn me off a bit. Also, after her reveal, her acting was kind of corny. Again, it isn’t at all Amelia’s fault. I just think if she were given better direction & lines, her performance would be better. 3. Jill Roberts (Scream 4): I hear many of you screaming at me right now. “Jill isn’t #1? She almost got away with it!” I am a Jill supporter. She is literally the bestfemale Ghostface killer we have so far. She’s just not the best in the franchise. I honestly wasn’t a fan of her character. I thought as a final girl, Jill was a pretty bland character. It was cool seeing her as Sidney’s cousin, but I just found her character to have no emotion, & I found her to be kind of bland. Also, I was not a fan of Emma Roberts’s acting. I thought Emma Roberts didn’t work as a final girl, & she didn’t work as a killer character. I found her lines to be pretty bitchy & corny, although some may like that. I just found her explaining her motives, & talking about being a star felt very corny. I think it’s because, throughout Emma’s career as an actress, we always see her as the bitchy cheerleader bully, always whining over things. Honestly, I feel, like Tyga, it’s shameful for both of them, considering since both of them are famous high-end people. The fact that we see them for their typical roles, Tyga as a gangster & Emma for bitchy teen roles, we cannot see them as something else. I hope both of them can get more representation & be represented for other roles. One last con of Jill is her motive. I’m going to be specific here. She didn’t have the best motive, & here’s why. Her main reason was that she was jealous of Sidney’s life & wanted to become famous by killing people & becoming the next final girl. I just thought that her primary motive was pretty greedy & not coherent at all. She’s way better than Mickey, Charlie, Billy, Stu, & Beth’s primary motive, but it’s just that her killing just because of jealousy over her sibling was wack. She should be proud that her cousin was a star. Also, her killing people for particular reasons was kind of all over the place, but it was okay. She just wanted to kill Sidney just because she got a better life than her. It’s pretty typical, as we’ve seen that with some of the killers already. She killed most of the people for personal reasons. She murdered Trevor & Jenny as Trevor cheated on her with Jenny, killed her mother because she thought she loved Sidney better, which was a pretty wack reason to believe that. Although some “fair” motives are killing the two cops because they were obstacles in her mom's way, & killing Charlie & Trevor to frame them was okay. You may be wondering, what makes Jill be in this spot? First off, Jill’s kills were pretty cool. Her calling & killing Rebecca inside the garage was pretty cool. Her killing the cops was nice as it was more swiftly than Mickey’s cop scene, & she killed them in a matter of seconds. Also, she stabbed her mom through a damn mail slot, & that reveal of her getting stabbed was pretty cool. Also, who could forget her shooting Trevor’s dick? She also had a very great kill count of 7 people. That’s a lot compared to more than half the killers. Another great thing about Jill is that she’s one of the smartest killers in the franchise. She came closer to killing Sidney even more than the other killers. She also almost successfully made people believe Trevor & Charlie were the killers. Her self-inflicting wounds was pretty cool. The only hindrance to her intellect is the fact she didn’t successfully kill Sidney. Another great thing was her plan, & as said before, she had the BEST PLAN out of everyone in the franchise this far. Jill came close to killing her primary target, she fooled people believing that she was the perfect victim, & she even fooled people after her death, assuming the gang will tell the police about it. I’d say the only small hindrance is what she would do after realizing Sidney woke up. What was she going to say to the police? That Trevor & Charlie came back from the dead & killed the gang? No, there would be fingerprints all over Sidney & the others, & she would most likely be caught. That’s the only hindrance in her plan, but other than that, she’s #1 in regards to that. Another great thing about Jill was the number of people she betrayed. She’s the most treacherous killer we have thus far in the franchise. She killed anyone who ever loved her, including her mother & friends who actually did care about her. She fooled the police department, Sidney, Gale, Dewey, Kirby, etc. She never cared about anyone other than herself & she’s the EVILEST killer in the franchise thus far. One last great thing about Jill was the surprise factor. Now here’s the thing, I figured out Jill was the killer when she said she lost her phone, but going from a general sense, she’s one of the most surprising killers in the franchise. She made it pretty convincing that she was the next Sidney, & even the trailers did, but they pulled a 180 on the fans by making her the killer. The attack was a pretty cool way of making it look like she was innocent. Even though she’s not the best killer, she’s the most treacherous, evil, & best planning maker killer in the franchise thus far. 2. Roman Bridger (Scream 3): Roman gets a lot of hate. Roman’s usually very low on many people’s list, even called the worst Ghostface killer behind Charlie, which baffles me, & I think they give Roman too much shit while praising other killers very highly for bullshit stuff compared to Roman. Please don’t put Roman on your list just because of a movie. Yes, Scream 3 is arguably the worst out of all the Scream movies thus far, but I love the movies in general, & if there’s one thing great about Scream 3, it’s Roman Bridger. There is no denying Roman’s skills as a Ghostface killer, so let’s get to them. One great thing about Roman is his kill count. He killed nine people in just one spree. Roman had some really cool kills, too, despite them not being brutal. The phone call to Cotton was pretty cool & him spying on Christine in the shower was very badass. Him also exploding the house was pretty awesome & him killing three people in just three minutes was just god-like, killing Tyson by breaking his back & throwing him that high off a balcony & that cool line while slitting his father, John Milton’s throat, was badass. Roman isn’t some copycat copying the order of murders or killing people of similar roles. He killed people by order of a damn script & that was cool. Another great thing about Roman was his intelligence. He is easily the MOST INTELLIGENT out of all the Scream killers. Roman is the ONLY killer to work alone BY HIMSELF (with technically Kieran as he was helping Piper), & it takes a lot of doing things by yourself without an accomplice, even faking your own death & claiming your innocence. Another great thing about Roman is his bulletproof vest. If you are going to kill people, protect yourself. Most of the killers died by being shot in the chest, while when Roman was shot in the chest, he didn’t die! Also, he has a magic voice changer that could imitate other people’s voices. Now yes, it’s a big stretch & unrealistic as hell, but I love it. Having a mastermind of a franchise having a voice changer that can make it seem like it’s anyone is cool as hell. This was long before the TV series's phone apps, which gives him very high points for doing that. He also basically created this whole franchise, & he was inches from killing Sidney if she didn’t also use the bulletproof vest. Also, Roman even made Billy gullible & basically created him as a killer too. Roman’s motive was also really good. I mean, he’s this abandoned kid thrown out by his mom, & his mom even denied that he was her son, & Sidney had the life he should have had. In regards to targeting specific people, he killed Cotton, Christine, & Sarah to lure Sidney out of hiding; Steve was in the way as he was the bodyguard of the house, Jennifer, Tyson, & Angelina were killed because they were in the house & got in the way, & Milton was to frame Sidney & the fact that he was Roman’s father. It’s unknown why he killed Tom but as far as that, him killing the eight was fair. Roman also betrayed a lot of people in the process of his spree. Roman killed all the nine people he worked with, his cast, crew, & father, just to hurt Sidney. Also, another plus side is his character. Now yes, Roman isn’t really in the movie & didn’t really stand out. However, I liked his role as the director. He was just an obsessed director trying to get this movie done. That was pretty interesting as the killers we’ve seen in the films & series aren’t directors but are horror fans, students, or reporters. It’s cool to see a change of types of roles in the series. Another great thing was Scott Foley’s acting. I enjoyed his acting before the reveal, as he played this laid back & very defensive director trying to get his reputation fixed & getting this great movie released. Some parts could come off corny, but I found it to be pretty interesting. After his reveal, I like the monologue he provided & the fact he was the mastermind of Ghostface. Not to mention, Neve stabbing him with an ice pick is actually a real scream by Scott Foley, as Neve missed the padding, & Scott ended up with a scar on his back. Props to him! One last great thing about Roman was his surprise factor. I liked how he was a suspect, so no one could believe that he was the killer. I also like how he was a background character, not really in the movie, as that combined maintained his innocence, even faking his death too. Despite Roman almost killing Sidney, his plan really sucked. No one would ever believe that Sidney Prescott killed her own mother, & no one would ever think that she would kill those nine people just for losing her mind. Now yes, Roman could have successfully framed her for Milton's murder, but there would have to be people to realize that she wasn’t working alone, & what was she going to do with Gale, Dewey, & Kincaid? I just thought his plan was very convoluted. I think it’s better than half of the killers on this list, but it’s just as complicated as hell. Also, unfortunately, the kills weren’t really brutal. I praise him for murdering Cotton, Tyson, & Tom epically, but it’s just that they weren’t really bloody, & some parts were tame. However, I can’t fault him as during the 2000s, the very unfortunate Columbine Massacre happens, thus prohibiting the gore in horror movies to be in numerous amounts, so they had to tone the amount down for the film. I bet if that didn’t happen, Roman would have some of the most brutal kills in the series. 1. Kieran Wilcox (Season 1 & 2): My favorite killer in the entire Scream franchise thus far is The Lakewood Slasher himself, Kieran Wilcox. You may be wondering, why is Kieran in this spot? Well, Kieran easily has the best kills in the entire franchise. Kieran has the highest kill count in the entire franchise of OVER A DOZEN PEOPLE. Yes, Roman killed many people per spree, & I bet he would kill more if there were a second, but Kieran has the HIGHEST KILL COUNT of his entire career as a serial killer. Another great thing about his kills. He's the MOST DIVERSE KILLER. He used many diverse & various weapons such as a buck knife, noose, fire-poker, scythe, bear trap, corkscrew, wine bottle, clothing iron, glass mirror, coffin, drowning, pitchfork, & a gun. Another cool thing is that he is the only killer to kill in 2 sprees. No one else can claim that meaning. He is almost the MOST BRUTAL killer of the franchise, killing his victims physically & mentally by playing mind games on them & psychologically torturing them. Another cool thing about Kieran is that he is the ONLY killer in the franchise to kill an ANIMAL! A living, breathing creature! He killed the pig & ripped out its heart, & also it’s hinted that he killed his neighbor’s dog. Who can argue with Kieran’s Kill Game? Most brutal, diverse, & highest count. Another great pro about Kieran is his intelligence. He’s one of the most intelligent killers in the franchise. It takes a serious intellect to avoid being caught for two seasons, especially with all of the impressive stuff Kieran did. He was also the MOST SLY killer the franchise has ever had. He worked painstakingly around the clock & is very tech-savvy with setting all those cameras & technology up. He was a master lock picker, hacker, crime scene fixecleaner, sneaker, even standing on Audrey's bed to paint in blood while she slept in her bed. The only reason he got caught was just because of a verbal slip-up. He is extremely elaborate, as seen by how he hung Haley like a doll & somehow got Jake up on the catwalk for his body to fall from the banners onto Brooke during a meeting. Another cool thing is that Kieran is another killed to do everything BY HIMSELF. Despite him working with Piper, he worked alone with no accomplices or any helpers regarding his 2nd spree. Another great thing about Kieran was his plan. Kieran had the best execution in his long game plan. He could have gotten away with the murders if he didn't avenge Piper. This guy worked tediously & lived a double life so effortlessly. Framing Audrey & Emma were very cool, & he almost got away with it too. The only reason he got caught was that he didn't expect Eli to be there, & the fact that he had a verbal slip-up to Emma. Other than that, he has one of the best plans in the entire franchise. Kieran also betrayed a lot of people during his run as a serial killer. He betrayed & Emma, Audrey, Brooke, Jake, Noah, Stavo, Hayley, Zoe, Kristen, Maggie, Miguel, the FBI (from SEASON 1), & the entire police department. He even killed his own father & cousin in cold blood. It is also most likely possible that he even murdered his MOTHER & STEP-DAD in the car crash just to get to Lakewood to kill his father. He killed more family members than any of the killers thus far. Kieran was also a great character. Yes, he's blander than the rest of the Lakewood Six, but I found his character cool as this shady loner with a troubled past. I enjoyed most of the scenes he was in too. I like the darkness he had around him in the first two seasons, & in the second season, we get to have more character development around him & see more in his backstory. In fact, I think Kieran had the best character development out of all the killers. I think it's because he is the only killer to be in two seasons, & he also has the most amount of screen-time out of anyone in the series. I like how believable Amadeus Serafini was as a killer, & I think the killer reveal was his best scene out of the entire series. He has great range, & I thought he was the most underrated actor the series has had. He was very creepy & menacing as a killer, with the sinister smile, & moving & talking. In fact, I think he's the most scariest & sadistic killer we have thus far. Another cool thing about Kieran is that he is the ONLY killer to live after his reveal, before his fortunate/unfortunate demise in prison, & he is the only killer to be caught & sent to jail after. That was a historic first in the series thus far. One last great thing about Kieran is his surprise factor. I was honestly pretty surprised that Kieran was the killer. In Season 1, I suspected him to be one of the killers. However, it ended up being false because when Piper was revealed in Season 1, that cleared his name in the end & dismissed the fact that he was the killer. In Season 2, I always just took him as part of the main cast, & I honestly didn't think that the show-runners would make one of the Lakewood Six, the killer. I always thought Emma's Dad or Eli was the killer, not him. I think the only con I have about Kieran was his motive, as I thought Kieran didn't have the best motivation, but not the worst one. He only killed because he wanted revenge for Piper's death, his accomplice, who, along with him, murdered Emma's friends & tortured her mentally. He also wanted revenge against his dad for partying & doing drugs & sending him to Atlanta. I thought it was the worst out of all the abandonment motives. I do give him points for killing the nine people during his second spree for framing Audrey & Emma & killing Rachel to stop people from knowing he was one of the killers, but other than that, him trying to help Piper & killing his dad for a small reason felt a bit off. All & all, I think Kieran is the best killer we have so far, as he displays all seven characteristics I listed in a great fashion & nails it. What is your list, & why? What characteristics/categories are you using? If you want to use mine, what would your list be & why? Please let me know in the comments. Thank you, everyone, so much! I hope you & yours are well during this time. TL;DR: My list is Charlie < Stu < Billy < Beth < Debbie < Mickey < Jay < Piper < Jill < Roman < Kieran. What's yours & why?
I have become incrementally more bullish on GME in the last 24 hours. Why? I think the borrow rate is the key. I am told the locate is actually quite easy: eg, a hedge fund can short 1m shares if it wanted to. At the moment, that's a $300m position, which is quite large for even the biggest hedge funds. The borrow rate is 50%. What does that mean? Short sellers have to pay longs 50% interest (annual, simple) to borrow the stock. GME can get cut in half and you can break even, IF that rate persists. It may not persist. It may grow higher. I'd watch the borrow rate as the #1 indicator for the stock. If the borrow rate goes down, the stock is probably in trouble as your incremental buyer may not be there. If it climbs to 100%+, it indicates significant pressure (and expense) on the shorts. I think the stock is less shorted than people here might think and most of the price action is being dictated by speculative long buying. Short interest data is often misleading. A broker dealer is allowed to have shorts that are hedged against calls without necessarily getting a locate. The mechanics of this stuff are very arcane and it's not clear that it is policed at all. Of course, speculators need to have a locate before shorting. I can't repeat enough: watch the borrow rate, it's all that matters. Ignore the short interest numbers. SWOT is a silly analytical perspective for a trade, but let's try it. Strengths #1. YOU GET PAID TO OWN THE STOCK. At a 50% borrow rate, GME is a bond paying you 50%. That rate won't last forever. In fact, it might go up! But I doubt it persists for a year. Momentum Pain Trade. At 1,000 the market cap is $70B. That's pretty stupid, but it is now my prediction it will happen. Weaknesses GME is a shit-tier retailer. Don't ever forget this. Any business turnaround will take years. There is no magic button to push that will make them profitable enough to match the valuation. The valuation is insane. The stock will eventually return to normal. In one or two years, I think the stock will be back to 'normal' (eg 10-20x NTM EBITDA). The market can stay irrational for a very, very long time, however. The folly of the long-short hedgie (I include myself here), is the idea that the self-annointed master of the universe knows the 'real' valuation a stock should be, presses a button and expects it to happen. This is what happens when keeping it real goes wrong. Short interest cuts both ways. "Smart" traders are all crowded to bet that your stock is going to go down. Usually that's not a good thing. Usually, but not always (see APPX a long time ago, which was a very crowded short which did just fine. HLF more recently). Self-fulfilling prophecy: the higher the stock gets the more reason longs have to sell. The "hold the line" philosophy is stupid. Once you can take a million dollars in profits (or whatever number is a lot for you), you should and you will. Opportunities A real investor shows up. Carl Icahn likes to play poker. A Saudi investor. Anyone who could file a 13G is what you need, not a tweet. Right now 5% is $1B. Silly little things: Ryan becomes CEO, company acquires CD Projekt or some other smart move, etc. No news can justify the stock price, but management has to do something to keep the momentum going if you're going to see sustained success. Threats After 6 months, Ryan Cohen can take money off the table. After a 50x, who would not? The SEC, the Fed, brokers and banks may try to pop the GME bubble as they may view it as systematically dangerous. After all, what stock could be next? I would not be surprised at various events: a prolonged stock halt, 100% margin requirement, huge ATM/stock offering from the company, litigation, etc. Expect the unexpected. Market Participants Elon Musk and Chamath mean nothing unless they buy a lot. Musk has credit, less so cash, so it's unclear he would play. You need a cash rich guy (Icahn, Soros, Saudis) to show up. I don't think the hedgies are interested in getting long since the mark-to-market is too much for them. Permanent capital is the only buyer, and finding a permanent capital semi-irrational buyer at this point is unlikely. Rumors Melvin is out. Not surprised at all, if anything, surprised it took this long. Final Words Please don't have more than even a third (previously 50%) of your portfolio in this stock. It is at an outlandish price and while it may get more outlandish, it is quite dangerous. Don't use leverage or margin. I've seen too many train wrecks (some of my own) and failures because of greedy behavior. My family and I have not traded a share of GME. Prison makes it hard to do anything like trade. If anything I'd be long a small amount, betting the borrow fees make up for any underlying stock losses and the insanity persists throughout the year. Good luck to all my fellow hand-flapping, full-blown, spectrum-residing autists. Tendies await.
Been awhile since I made a post educating you retards, throwing pearls before swine. I've been disheartened by some of the comments I've read recently and just wanted to provide some tips for the genuine noobies/retards among us. If you already know this shit, congrats, move along sir. Take a look at my previous, more advanced guide to some theta gang theory for those looking for something a bit more in depth: https://www.reddit.com/wallstreetbets/comments/iz68r4/how_to_consistently_outperform_the_sp500_using/ Without further ado... TOP 5 TIPS Every Noobie Trader MUST Know.
1) You MUST understand Implied Volatility.
I made this the first point because it is the gigantic mistake I see noobies here making again and again. I'm talking to you, people who bought calls on PLTR at $30. If you learn anything from this post, you MUST learn this. You see a stock make a massive move either up or down. Your immediate response is "this is a great opportunity to buy calls/puts on a volatile stock!" Right? WRONG! In fact, when a stock has just made a massive move in either direction, that is perhaps the WORST time to purchase options in EITHER direction. Options are not stupid. Options are designed to price in the fact that a stock is moving wildly. This is called "implied volatility." They become more expensive as a stock makes more dramatic moves, to price in the volatility you and everyone else is expecting. It's quite possible and even likely that you buy an option on a high IV stock, and the stock moves in your direction, and yet you LOSE money, because it didn't move as dramatically as was expected by the implied volatility. This is called "IV crush." It only takes one or two experiences with IV crush for most traders to learn this lesson for life. If you understand this concept before you lose a ton of money, all the better. So, what should you do if a stock is highly volatile and options are expensive due to IV? There are two choices: Trade actual shares, or SELL the options rather than buy them. If you are bullish on a high IV stock, you can take a bullish position by SELLING a cash-secured put rather than buying the call. If you are bearish on a high IV stock, you can take a bearish position by SELLING a call rather than buying a put (although this entails greater risk and will typically require higher options trading level by your broker).
2) You MUST have patience.
It's a tale as old as time. A noobie investor does some research, reads some DD, and is convinced a stock is going to rise over the next couple years. So he buys in. A bad day or two hits and the stock tanks. He panics, and sells. The next couple days the stock rises and appears to stabilize. So he buys back in again, because he still believes in his thesis. The stock drops again, and he panic sells again. In reality the stock is just trading sideways, but this idiot keeps buying on green days and selling on red days. This is perhaps the most idiotic, suicidal strategy anyone could ever employ. Buying on green and selling on red is a surefire strategy to lose money consistently over time. This is why you MUST remove your emotions from your trades, because your emotions will usually tell you to buy on green and sell on red, literally buy high and sell low. As the boomer Warren Buffett once stated: "The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient." Here is a better approach. Set up your entire trade BEFORE you make the trade. Have a set price you will sell at if things go south. Have a target price you will sell at if things go well. Once the dust settles you can learn from any mistakes. Were you too aggressive, or too conservative in your targets? What emotions directed you to make those mistakes? Too much greed, too much risk aversion, too LITTLE risk aversion? Make every trade a learning opportunity.
3) You MUST understand "Reversion to the Mean."
In general, stocks will tend to revert to their trendlines. This thesis is fairly simple. If a stock moons 10% in a day, the most likely event is a drop the next day. If a stock tanks 10% in a day, the most likely event is a rise the next day. This is because humans are emotional creatures. First, they overreact to big news. Next, one of two things happen: When the stock is way up, people see it as a profit taking opportunity, so they sell. When the stock is way down, people see it as a buying opportunity, so they buy. I don't have any hard data to back up this thesis, but I'm sure there's a bunch of nerds out there with hard data that proves exactly this, as well as trading algorithms specifically designed for a "reversion to the mean" strategy that are consistently profitable. Obviously there will be exceptions, as well as times when a big move signals a shift in the trendline. All I am saying is in the MAJORITY of cases, reversion to the mean will occur. Don't go chasing stocks that have made massive short-term swings in a single direction unless you have strong reasons (not just hopes) to believe the trend has changed.
4) You MUST not YOLO your account more than once (or twice).
This is going to be controversial for some of you. But it's just straight math. If you keep betting your entire account, or close to it, on single trades, it's only a matter of time before you go broke. That is a mathematical guarantee. Let's say you are one of the most skilled, intelligent, informed investors on the planet (doubtful). So skilled your plays are 90% correct. If you bet your entire portfolio on each trade, you are still expected to go completely broke after around 10 trades. Let's say you aren't a brilliant stonk gambler. Let's say you are just average and your trades are a coin flip (which is generous for a lot of you retards). If you bet your entire bankroll on each bet, on average you will go completely broke in just 2 trades. Again, there is a lot of complicated math we can go through to predict account explosion times and optimal bet sizing and so on, but that isn't necessary here. Professional gamblers such as poker players have refined bankroll management theory, which usually means at the least they aren't putting more than 10% of their cash on the table in one sitting, usually closer to 5%. (Take a look at the "Kelley criterion" for an interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion) I know a lot of you are broke with no life prospects and hoping to get rich quick. I don't fault you for that, I get it. The problem arises when you see the people who got insanely lucky with guessing 10 coin flips in a row who turned $1000 into $1,000,000, and hope to do the same... but for every one retard with a record like that you've got hundreds more who lose it all and have nothing to show for it. I won't fault anyone for making a gigantic, life-changing bet a single time. That is your choice to make, and it just might pay off. But if you think you are going to do that again and again and survive, you are delusional.
5) You MUST be Skeptical... of EVERYTHING.
Fools and their money are soon parted. Don't be a fool. Your first instincts when hearing ANYTHING should be skepticism. Your friend has a hot stock tip? Start with skepticism. Some online DD on a meme or penny stock online sounds convincing? Start with skepticism. A highly respected financial or government agency gives future guidance on whatever... again, start with skepticism. There are a million people out there trying to take advantage of you, to pump and dump you, to scam you, to trick you into spending more money on whatever. There are times when being a conformist pays off, like when markets rally for months straight. There are times when being a contrarian pays off, like when markets tank and sectors collapse. Don't be a consistent conformist nor a consistent contrarian. Be skeptical of every thesis and every hypothesis you hear, or even the ones you invent yourself. When you take this approach honestly and still become convinced of a thesis, you have a higher probability than most of being correct. Seek out opinions that contradict your biases, not opinions that confirm your biases. This is incredibly difficult and goes against human nature, but if you can achieve this ideal, you will out-trade 90% of the public. Edit: Holy fuck this thing has 255 awards... I don't even know what to do with this gay reddit coin shit but I have 2.9k now so thanks?
r/Conservative dives into controversy after (only?) copies of "damning Hunter Biden documents" were allegedly stolen from the mail en-route to Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson. Is it a case of "my dog ate my homework", or 5D chess by "the smartest man in DC"?
tl;dr: Fox News host Tucker Carlson claims that a source mailed him massively incriminating documents about Joe Biden's son that would totally sway the election for Trump, but unknown actors stole the only copies of the proof from his mail. Even the subConservativeis skeptical about this story, with some saying it's evidence that spies are frantically suppressing the truth, or it's a Tucker ruse to force Biden to a misstep; others saying it's the most obvious "my dog ate my homework" in political history. UPDATE: allegedly UPS found the missing package of “evidence” today, and Tucker immediately announced that everyone should leave Hunter alone because Hunter is just a sad dude with drug problems. Background: for anyone who hasn't been following the news, a week and some ago the New York Post broke the story that Hunter Biden, son of former VP and current presidential candidate Joe Biden, has been linked to serious crimes (at minimum corruption and bribery) by a laptop of his acquired under somewhat confused circumstances. Questions have emerged about the story, as supposedly it involves the California multi-millionaire Hunter dropping off several water-damaged Apple laptops at a tiny repair place at a strip mall in Delaware near Joe's home. The story is too complex to go into, but suspicious aspects include the shop owner is legally blind and can't guarantee it was indeed Hunter who dropped off the laptop, among other people he sent copies of the hard drive to Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, lots of odd twists. So those who are skeptical allege that in actuality, hackers (possibly foreign) stole legit emails and photos from Hunter's iCloud for credibility and then mixed in fake incriminating materials and then loaded them onto a hard drive so as to have a plausible background story without admitting to the hacking. On the opposite end, those who believe it's real are convinced this is the "nuclear bomb" that destroys Joe Biden and wins the election for Trump, and the story on fringe media and discussion has rapidly expanded from the HD showing evidence of corruption and bribery (including kickbacks to Joe), photos/videos of Hunter with sex workers and using drugs (which nobody denies he's done in the past), and moved deeper and deeper into claims the HD shows Hunter molesting his underage niece, and allegations it shows Hunter literally cannibalizing Chinese children. NOTE: do not do not do not link directly to any Hunter materials from Reddit, as at bare minimum they involve stolen personal intimate images, potentially show illegally-acquired hacked materials, and (probably not true but just to be safe) allegedly show crimes against minors. People linking to Hunter content from Reddit have been immediately and permanently banned, don't do it. For further context, just to address a common argument about Hunter (as neutrally as possible), while opponents say Hunter has received high paying jobs from foreign governments despite zero qualifications, to be fair he's a graduate of Yale Law School, was Executive VP at a US financial firm, worked on e-commerce programs at the US Department of Commerce, was appointed to the board of directors of Amtrak by President George W. Bush and became vice chairman, and has done a bunch of lobbying and investment activities. So it's totally fair to question the degree to which Hunter has leveraged his birth advantage, but it's also not like he was flipping burgers for crack money prior to this. On to the popcorn: Fox News initially declined to cover the "Hunter Biden bombshell" or "hard-drive from hell" because Rudy Giuliani wasn't providing the metadata to confirm the contents are real. But some Fox News hosts were willing to report on the fact that the New York Post is talking about it. Tucker Carlson claims his sources in Washington DC obtained absolutely verifiable documents and mailed them to his Los Angeles office, and the package was intercepted and the documents removed. Conservative falls to debating how plausible this story is over a number of posts tonight:
In poker, a "3bet" occurs when there is a bet, raise and re-raise. The re-raise is the "3bet". For instance - let's say that you are playing in a cash game. You currently have the button. A player from early position raises, and you look down and pocket Aces. You put in a re-raise, or "3bet". 3 Bet Meaning Poker. on where 3 Bet Meaning Poker the pointer on the wheel stops. Deal or No Deal is another live casino game, based on the popular TV show with the same name, letting players pick suitcases to reveal cash 3 Bet Meaning Poker prizes that can be won. All About 3 Betting in Poker The Three Bet. One of the common definitions you will hear as you play poker is “3-bet”, or “three-bet”. A 3-bet as most players use the term means the act of putting in the third bet, technically the second “raise”, the “3-bet” during any given round of action. It’s only in recent years that the term has become popular, indicative of its use during online play. A 3-bet will usually force some players out before the flop, making it more likely that you will win the hand. 3-betting gives you a chance to pick up the pot preflop Calling an open-raise gives you no chance to pick up the pot preflop, but 3-betting does. If and when the HiJack calls the 3-bet, there will be post-flop poker to play. That’s where realized equity comes in. Considering Raw Equity Versus Realized Equity. The relationship between the raw equity of a hand and its profitability in practice is not a linear one. There are some hands that have a strong correlation between their raw equity and realized equity, but there are a far The reason it is called a 3-bet is that the automatic posting of the blinds is considered the first bet; the second bet (2-bet) is when a player raises the blinds instead of calling them; and the third bet (3-bet) is the re-raising of the 2-bet. 3-bet poker statistics take much longer to yield useful data when compared to common poker stats such as VPIP and PFR. Once you get at least 1,000 hands on your opponent, you can be reasonably certain that you have good information on their It frequently happens that a new player will assume that a “3 bet” is a raise roughly 3 times the size of the previous bet. It’s quite easy to see how this assumption arises. Let’s first consider the correct definition of “3 bet”. 3 bet = The third bet in any given sequence of bets. As poker matures and aggression increases, it’s very important that you are understanding 3-bet ranges correctly. Today’s players are using advanced 3 bets more often and applying lots of preflop pressure, so it’s imperative that we can handle their 3bets profitably. In this article we are going to discuss how to assess a 3-bet range to help choose the best line when facing a 3bet The 3-bet (or more specifically, light 3-betting) is an advanced concept that adds an extra weapon to a game that has likely become repetitive and stagnant, even if that current game strategy is winning you money at the tables. It mixes blackjack and three-card poker to offer some attractive odds. How to play blackjack 21+3. In the 21+3 blackjack side bet you bet on whether the first two cards of your hand and the dealer
Poker Strategy - 3 Bet or fold from the button? - YouTube
Heybude and Mersenneary of http://www.husng.com discuss a 3-bet situation between high stakes professional poker players Lotte Lenya and Fishenzon. They talk... Justin "LappyPoker" Lapka talks with Abe and Stretchy about a button spot holding A9s and facing a raise from a tight player.👇 Follow Lappy on Social Media ... http://www.intellipoker.pl/W dzisiejszych czasach bez dobrej strategii obejmującej 3-bet w grach stolikowych No Limit Hold'em jesteś skazany na porażkę! A 3-Card Poker tutorial from WinStar World Casino. My reader Chris brings us this #HelloAlec episode. He played this cash game hand recently and he would like to know more about his poker betting strategy. On... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. TheDefiniteArticle finishes off the sub-series on constructing 3-betting ranges by going through a variety of such ranges and the reasoning behind them. Grin... In this video, I review a hand using PioSolver from an online NL50 6 max game and discuss what to consider during the hand when deciding to barrel off agains... Poker Vlog #110 - I'm happy to see I get dealt pocket queens, but don't know what to do after seeing a HUGE 3-bet??Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/davidkayepok... This video is about the concept of 3-betting in poker
