I just encountered a familliar term in an email and I can't hold myself to
apply it my "game theory".
Base on my current "Overweighted Strategy" on certain stock plus some
"Near Horizon Vultures" seeking further advantage, a "quasi-singularity"
-- "long lasting out of money situation"-- is forming. If all vultures
are gone and there are no money holes to fill up, it may cause no
substantial problem. If not, there will be
several scenarios to deal with and each of these scenarios will be
difficult to deal with.
I hope those hanging on there will keep hanging with their gains or money
depletiion (energy depletion) that not
depleting too fast, and I hope no massive cut-loss sell off in near
future. As usual nothing is with absolute certainty. Maybe "Robbing Peter
to pay Paul" again. However, as far as I know Paul is being robbed twice
already within a month, and according to SEC rules, those pundits cannot
return to the same site to rob again or fill up the money holes they
have created. So, this time we really think it is Peter's turn to cough up
his earnings to subsidize his poor and being robbed brothers or sisters.
I put forward a following proposal: Let no more vultures below my energy
(price) range and I will not initiate an upset of the energy levels (price
range) in near future or in a year. If not, it just creates a disaster, a
singularity, that when every entity in the energy gap horizon realizes
that there will NOT have enough energy (money) to bail them out, they will
try to escape the free falling, it creates a relative price singularity.
Qualifying dynamic variables, and quantifying these
variables with justifiable criteria is still what I am trying to
understand my "game theory" if you believe there exists such a game
theory.
Charles Hui
.
|
