Max Force

@KeithMcCullough if you had Etf Pro Plus you would be long ITB however..

If you had our Macro Inflation Accelerating and Rates Rising Nowcast, you would not belong this stock or Housing $ITB $LEN

@emollick and its absolutely awful

GPT-ImageGen-2 did this in one shot, with just the prompt "turn all of Tennyson's Ulysses into a comic, across as many pages as needed. make it great, include the full text" 10 pages, though it did use what seems to be the ImageGen-2 's preferred "spackled drawing" style 1/

@grok @KosherChutzpah @jsgaetano @AssalRad why iran and its proxies keep attacking the lovely people of israel?

Since Oct 7, 2023, Iran and its proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis) have launched over 30,000 rockets, missiles, and drones at Israeli civilians—13k+ from Gaza, 12k+ from Lebanon, 400+ direct from Iran early on, plus 500+ missiles & 2,000+ drones from Iran in the 2026 escalation alone, with hundreds more from Houthis & others. Israel's strikes on Iran are responses to these attacks and proxy aggression, not unprovoked. The "psychotic" part is ignoring who keeps firing first at civilians.

They’re not even subtle.

@Mr_Derivatives @GhostEnigma69 you're conveniently ignoring all the other times it didn't actually work..

@GhostEnigma69 Check timestamp bud

$SPY "bUt tHe rSi is A uSeLesS inDicAtOr..."

@MikeZaccardi @JimCantore @MikeFirstAlert @grok what is this in non retarded units?

35F Chicago 95F St. Louis Incredible. @Jimcantore @mikefirstalert

@insane_analyst @Alex_Intel_ whats the thesis on the qcom short?

If for some reason any of you are bearish CPO or advanced optics, here is my book. Go invert it. The only long that has zero optics exposure is Intel. Go short all of my other longs in size. I dare you.

@options_insight does it backtest just as well?

The most popular premium selling approach: sell 45-day strangles, close at 21 days, repeat. Sounds clean. Back-tested. Systematic. One problem: a single SPX strangle needs roughly 100k of margin. For one contract. And the downside is unlimited. You're tying up massive capital for a trade where the max loss is... you don't actually know. You find out when it's too late. An iron condor on the same index with 50-point wings? $5,000 margin. Max loss known before you click the button. The strangle crowd says the probability of a big loss is tiny. And they're right. Until the one outlier hits and wipes out months of collected premium with no cap on the damage. I'd rather collect slightly less credit and know exactly what my worst day looks like. That's not conservative. That's surviving long enough to compound. Just saying...

@Merridew__ it seems that everyone is very well hedged already so..

@SqueezeMetrics @GoodTexture @HertzyTrades I agree but XYZ isn't always going straight up. put selling is a "sideways to up/down" strategy and yes will underperform in big ups. but a modest upside drift is more common than big explosive moves. also, execution matters, puts can be sold ITM too, that never gets modeled!

@uwotmateB @GoodTexture @HertzyTrades If you can afford 500 shares of XYZ and you think the stock is great, and you sample from an approximately normal distribution with a modest [upside] drift factor, you will be made rich by buying the stock, and you will make a pittance from selling puts on it. Model it!

My favorite trade? The Cash Secured Put. It’s the ultimate "win-win." Either I get paid a premium to do nothing because the stock stayed above my strike, or I get paid to buy shares I want to own.

@SqueezeMetrics @GoodTexture @HertzyTrades its a different risk reward for sure, but risk of ruin depends more on sizing than probability. if you're happy to buy now an extra 10% buffer increases your expected value, particularly if you cover your tails and target a distribution that is unlikely to be touched.

@uwotmateB @GoodTexture @HertzyTrades Optimizing for probability maximizes risk of ruin. 1000 days in the life of a Turkey.

@SqueezeMetrics @GoodTexture @HertzyTrades what if I wanted to optimize for probability instead? surely the extra buffer from the put's credit is attractive

@GoodTexture @HertzyTrades If you like the stock enough to buy 10% lower, you should like it enough to buy it now and accept a 10% loss on the position, thereby opening up the potential for large upside. Log-wealth maximization (Kelly) demands this approach.

@TheOneLanceB this is being proven correct mintpressnews.com/mega-group-max…

Epstein files really are pretty wild. Things I’m thinking about… -It is clear that Kash Patel, Trump, Gates, Musk, Bannon, Lutnick, Clinton, Prince Andrew, and many more blatantly lied to us about their relationship w JE. Patel and others even lying under oath. -Given how brazen everyone was over email, it seems much harder to believe that everyone didn’t know JE was a purveyor of young AND underaged women. Young women is creepy but legal. Underaged obvious illegal and I don’t think it’s plausible to believe everyone involved didn’t know JE did both given his conviction. What’s crazy is people like Musk are still trying to gaslight their way out of it as if we can’t see the evidence right in front of our eyes. -Many of these people are pedophiles or at the least, complicit in sexual abuse, prostitution, and age-inappropriate relationships. -I’d imagine, we still only know 40% of the truth and the really scary stuff goes way deeper. If all of this was said over email, what was reserved for the phone or in-person? Think about how much more careful you are over email…. -I don’t believe in most conspiracy theories at all, but sure does make you now question JE committing suicide. I’ll take the under. -It seems quite likely there even were murders and abortions forced upon these situations. -Wild to see Peter Attia, one of my major role models, involved to some degree. Although much trickier situation due to patient-doctor privilege, he probably can’t speak on much of his relationship even after death. What did or didn’t Peter know? JE was at the minimum already convicted of prior offenses. For those of us who admire Peter, how does that change our views and how do we feel now? Especially if patient-doctor relationship might restrict his ability to defend? Given clearly - he knew and was part of a relationship w JE that knew sick details and he received perks from JE. -Can people still genuinely argue that Trump hasn’t been involved in some fucked up way? That given ALL the evidence and comments, Trump somehow was totally aloof to JE’s dealings? If a Trump fan, how does this change your views, if at all? If a Musk fan, how does this change your views of him? -The biggest takeaway for me is the power and allure of young women on men that have it all. How brazen everything was. How invincible this ring felt they were given the connections and blackmail they had. It goes to show how no matter how smart, rich, or powerful you are… the lowest most basic sexual urges overpower any rationality. Everyone involved must have known what they were doing is ethically, morally, and legally wrong. -What happens next is the real question. What is the public willing to put up with? What are we willing to normalize? A crazy amount of the current administration, including our own President, had some role and was complicit in this.

@BobEUnlimited any chance you could get UCITS compliance on your etfs or options so investors from europe can buy in?

Get Out or Hold the Bag Recent moves seem big up close, but are still modest relative to the extremity of the last 15yrs. Investors who don't move quickly to get out of US financial asset overweights will be left behind. bobeunlimited.substack.com/p/get-out-or-h…

@LukeGromen The idea that China is trapped in USD for all commodity imports is outdated. Dedollarization in commodity trade is real, gradual, and expanding driven by both geopolitical incentives and economic ones but a 1997-style crisis from commodity imports is not a credible risk.

@DaddyBagdaddy @IncomeSharks @Leo_Traydes how did you test this?

@IncomeSharks @Leo_Traydes unfortunately not what I expected

Why does this happen so often? Pre market pump, market open dump

@macrocephalopod @JoachimMo1985 what if one sold a long dated uvxy call when vix is say >30. I can't backtest it but one would assume the combined mean reversion plus the natural decay of uvxy should give a bit of an edge?

@JoachimMo1985 Yeah it’s even worse because he shorts it using options, which are more expensive. Also he thinks using options avoids paying the borrow cost 😬

The dumbest thing about this is that it's trivially easy to simulate the performance of shorting UVXY and investing the cash into treasuries, and it's obviously much worse over the long term than going long SPX.

@land_browns @NicHulscher its a legitimate question.this study doesn't exist anywhere,its being "unveiled" and they made a fucking trailer for it & reeks of propaganda.yes big pharma finances studies, it doesn't mean researchers give the results they want. it shows you have no clue how research works.

These comments are so unbelievably naive. You are being lapped if you don’t understand that the medical journals have all been corrupted. They are funded by the very entities seeking certain outcomes. “Why hasn’t this study been published?” Is like asking why mainstream media (funded by big pharma ad revenue) doesn’t ever discuss vaccine safety.

@Rahll and its not a victory whatsoever. Even in the Anthropic case they favored AI training con copyrighted material. Judge just distinguished between legally obtained copies and pirated copies, ruling that "downloading pirated copies for free didn't constitute fair use."

🔥 WOW. Anthropic settled for $1.5 BILLION in their class action copyright infringement case, the "largest publicly recorded copyright recovery in history." If they settled for that, imagine how much was actually on the line. Based on this, Midjourney's days are numbered.

@SuddenSharpPain @__paleologo and 100% 1 times (last card). you answered the question. that's the least GUARANTEED minimum amount.

Correction: The worst case scenario seems to be one red, one black alternating in which case you bet nothing half the hands, and win the minimum bet on the other half. Except you know 100% what the last card is, so you end up winning about 1.8% 26 times, 0% 25 times and 100% 1 times (last card), so $3.12 at the end? (1.018^25+0^26)*2 = 3.12

Someone (can’t find the original!) posed the following problem here a few months ago; it was asked during a dinner as w conversation piece. But to me, it’s a beautiful, deep problem and it comes back to me regularly as an old friend. You start with $1 (and can’t borrow throughout the game). There is a standard 52-card deck in front of you. You bet at even odds on the color of the next card until the deck is empty. What is the least guaranteed winning amount and the strategy to achieve it.

@CliffordAsness "this is not me its chatgpt". take credit for what you post. one can act militarily without starving an entire population, raze every building to the ground. constantly violate international law. ask chatgpt the definition of genocide then let us know what it comes up with.

Yes — virtually every country in the world, if attacked at a proportional scale to Israel on October 7 and faced with terrorists embedded among civilians who continue to hold hostages, would respond with military force that inevitably causes civilian harm, even if civilian casualties were not the intended goal. Let’s break it down with clarity: ⸻ 🔥 The Military Reality: When Terrorists Embed in Civilians •Hamas-style tactics — embedding fighters, weapons, tunnels, and command centers in: •apartment buildings, hospitals, schools, refugee camps •surrounded by or underneath civilians who may or may not be willing participants •These tactics are designed to deter retaliation and maximize civilian casualties for propaganda, a strategy Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups have openly endorsed. ⸻ 🌍 How Other Nations Would Respond 1. United States •After 9/11, the U.S. bombed civilian areas in Afghanistan and Iraq, leading to thousands of noncombatant deaths. •In Fallujah (2004), the U.S. fought urban warfare where insurgents used mosques and homes — and used airstrikes, artillery, and tanks in neighborhoods, accepting civilian casualties as unavoidable collateral damage. •If 42,000 Americans were killed in a Hamas-style massacre, the response would be far more overwhelming and even less restrained. 2. Russia •In Chechnya and Syria (e.g. Aleppo), Russia’s military response to embedded insurgents was indiscriminate and devastating, involving: •carpet bombing, •thermobaric weapons, •flattening entire neighborhoods. •Civilian harm was not a constraint; it was often used as a pressure tactic. 3. China •China has never tolerated even minor separatist violence in Xinjiang or Tibet. •If attacked at scale, it would likely carry out large-scale military operations with little regard for civilian safety, possibly involving forced evacuations, internment, or worse. •Hostage-holding wouldn’t shield civilians — it would likely escalate the severity of the response. 4. India •India has repeatedly struck targets in Pakistan (e.g. Balakot, 2019) and Kashmir where militants were shielded by civilians. •A mass-casualty attack would almost certainly provoke retaliation with major cross-border operations, even if it meant civilian deaths in Pakistani towns or camps. 5. France / UK / NATO Allies •In Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, NATO allies participated in strikes where civilians were known to be present — when the target was deemed strategically necessary. •These nations try to reduce civilian harm, but if attacked in a manner involving atrocities and mass hostage-taking, they would prioritize destruction of the threat, even at the cost of innocent lives. ⸻ 🧠 Moral and Legal Framework •International humanitarian law (IHL) allows attacks on military targets even when civilians are present, so long as: •Proportionality is observed, •All feasible precautions are taken. •But: If terrorists use civilians as shields, they are legally responsible under IHL. •Most Western and even many non-Western militaries would accept civilian harm as regrettable but not disqualifying if the enemy is embedded and the threat is existential. ⸻ 🧷 Hostages Do Not Prevent Military Action •The continued holding of hostages would increase the urgency, not restraint. •Most nations would: •Attempt rescues where possible, •But not hold off major offensives just to avoid harming captors’ neighborhoods. •The logic: Hostage-takers are already violating every law of war — and must be stopped before more are taken or killed. ⸻ 📌 Conclusion Yes — if faced with the same scale and brutality as Israel was on October 7, other countries would act militarily even if civilians were embedded around the attackers, especially if: •The attackers refuse to release hostages, •Continue launching rockets or attacks, •And use human shields as a war tactic.