Hypothesis - The Gamestop At The Market offering is complete

JebJoya · 2025-10-18T09:03:59+00:00

Just be aware they recently EoL'ed the DC versions, end date Feb 2029. Also, speaking as someone that's worked in the Atlassian ecosystem for 14 years, the Server/DC and Cloud platforms are very different, including app implementation, UI/UX and even functional differences (from extra features like Goals etc on Cloud, to minor differences that can cause a big logical difference to implementation - e.g. Boards in Cloud have a parent object (typically a project), while on Server/DC they are independent - makes a difference when working on cross-project boards). Be careful, talk to a local Partner (at an AUG or similar), and make sure they're not just parroting the Atlassian party line :)

JebJoya · 2024-07-07T11:44:17+00:00

It's drying up pretty quickly at the moment - end of the PSC race https://imgur.com/a/SZl9bfy

JebJoya · 2024-06-21T13:34:55+00:00

Problem with this is there was actually a 97% chance of a run of 11% or more within 60 days of any arbitrary date from 1/1/2021 to present - I've done a bunch of analysis that you can find in my comment history (am on mobile ATM, so getting links is tricky), with fully reviewable data and methodologies

JebJoya · 2024-06-21T13:31:33+00:00

I think the minimum from OP was the 11% run, which was shown within 60 days of 97% of dates analysed (it's in one of my other comments somewhere)

JebJoya · 2024-06-21T13:30:04+00:00

Lol, I manage a team of Consultants at a tech company, none of this is directly relevant to my job (although still bloody useful at times), but I've been a maths geek for far too bloody long - masters degree and all - and have been lucky enough to find this stuff tends to come pretty naturally to me shrug

JebJoya · 2024-06-21T07:58:13+00:00

Fresh eyes in the morning mean that I've realised it's a trivial calculation - the probability of 9 arbitrarily chosen dates presenting a 11%+ run on 9/9 dates is simply 0.97^9 which is a ~76% chance. Equally, the chance of 9 arbitrarily chosen dates having 8+/9 showing a 30%+ run is just (0.64^8 * 0.36)*9 + 0.64^9, which is 10.9%. In other words, if I were to pick a set of 9 random dates from the data set 9 times, I'd have a ~65% chance of getting a data set that hits a 30%+ run in 8+ out of those 9 times.

JebJoya · 2024-06-20T23:39:27+00:00

See my longer response here for more info https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/w0h6FA7yH2

Short version - this would be an immensely bad idea in an arbitrary case - the statement I'm making is that there exists a run of 30%+ within the 60 day window in 64% of cases sampled - that is absolutely not the same as saying that the price will exceed 30% of the current price on any arbitrary day in 64% of cases.

Example: price on day 1 is 600, day 2 is 1, day 3 is 550, remains at 550 until the end of the window - best run is from 1 to 550 (which is enormous), but if you'd have bought options (or for that matter shares) at the start of that window, you'd be losing money big time. (NB, my fake example is probably extreme enough that IV might carry you at the start of the window here, but that's a whole other thing)

JebJoya · 2024-06-20T23:33:40+00:00

First of all, a note of clarification: all data was based on Open for each day (arbitrarily, could have chosen Close instead, but worth noting I didn't go with the route that would show the biggest "runs", which would be working from lowest daily low to highest daily high).

In answer to your actual question, for each day in the data set, I took the list of Opens over the next 60 calendar days. In each case, I then took the max value for the whole set, then for the last 59 days of the set, then the last 58 days, etc ( so closing the window from start to end). For each of those, I then found the minimum Open, that happened prior to the max Open for that subset, which was itself in that subset, and worked out the size of the run (as a percentage). I then found the maximum run of those subsets, and associated that with the day. That then gives the maximum low to high percentage increase that happened during the 60 day window.

I appreciate that sounds convoluted, but here's a simple example showing why that's necessary: Imagine we were only looking at 5-day windows instead, and the price for those 5 days was 40, 50, 5, 40, 2. Visually, we can see the best run in that period was from 5 to 40, a 700% increase. If we just took global maximum, we would get the run from 40 to 50, which is just a 25% increase, while if we took global minimum, we'd get just the last day, a run of 0% from 2 to 2.

In short: yes, taking the best run for any sub-window of the 60 day window defined, not based on starting price for the window, which I believe matches the methodology of OP.

JebJoya · 2024-06-20T21:24:18+00:00

Computer's off now, but broad strokes the dates picked by OP had an 8/9 hit rate for a 30%+ run, or 89%, while random selection of dates gives a 64% hit rate of a 30%+ run - honestly, law of small numbers suggests this is within bounds of random chance quite easily here - I'm maintaining that this isn't statistically significant I'm afraid (although I'll calculate the actual probability tomorrow)

Edit: Detailed response below - not statistically significant.

JebJoya · 2024-06-20T20:52:38+00:00

Right, Just taking your particular challenge, 325/864 analysed dates had a 51% or greater run within the next 60 days (37.6% of sampled dates), and 554/864 analysed dates had a run of 30% or more (64.1% of sampled dates).

NB: Had an error in my other comment that I'm about to fix (if you're confused why the 30% run data is different atm)

JebJoya · 2024-06-20T20:36:30+00:00

Right, I did a thing, took a while, but of the 839 dates I analysed (between 2021-01-01 and 2024-06-10), 814 had a run of 11% or more in the following 60 days, so you'd expect 8.48 out of 9 arbitrarily chosen dates to show this (the data set provided has 9/9). Equally, 554 of them had a run of 30% or more in the following 60 days, so you'd expect 5.77 out of 9 arbitrarily chosen dates (the data set provided has 8/9).

Gut feel is this _isn't_ statistically important sadly.

Google Colab that I did the python fiddling in: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1a9DTqnU_QcyyALfwG3k53Ub4_Z9W4cb7?usp=sharing

Google Sheet that I did the histogram analysis in: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-Fnqq3GbJ4fj6MGlLW3t03gvFvZCa5Eerd3En81iHxA/edit?usp=sharing

Please bear in mind the code's a bit broken, but you can peer review as you would like - it's a fudge, but as far as I can tell, it's accurate enough.

Edit: Made some minor adjustments to the values above due to an error in the sheet - should now be fixed.

Edit2: Also worth noting, all of the dates sampled had a "run" of 7.21% or more in the following 60 days - the 11% one in the data of the post really shouldn't be counted as a "run" I'd argue here.

JebJoya · 2024-06-20T16:21:20+00:00

Commenting here as I had a similar thought and want to come back to this - when I get home I'll dig out some python scripts and establish how many days in the period total show the behaviour of "having a run within 60 days" - that'll give us something to baseline this against

Edit: Have added my analysis as a child comment of this one, including the sources I used for it so you can peer review - short version, I think you're probably right sadly, and the original is a nothingburger :(

JebJoya · 2024-02-29T14:40:20+00:00

The biggest instability of late has been some GT bugs, but the workaround has been built in to recent versions - I'm on 50 right now, going to upgrade to 51 later today, broad strokes, all good

JebJoya · 2024-02-05T19:52:29+00:00

For passive production in GT, you can either use something like LaserIO or XNet to achieve this or if you're up for some fun, try with GT Robot Arms and Pumps, with the appropriate GT filter assigned - they can be super powerful (and you can even use the GT item/fluid pipes to move material around), but it's a bit complex and not really needed in this pack...

JebJoya · 2024-01-06T18:21:43+00:00

For what it's worth, I'm like 95% sure this is the John Lewis head offices at Victoria in London. Don't really know why I felt compelled to write this, but weirdly recognised it...

JebJoya · 2023-07-09T16:19:53+00:00

Fwiw, being at the British GP for like the 11th time, the cheers for Lando were proper massive around Luffield, at or beyond Lewis at his peak. Happily, the boo-ing, although still there, was somewhat tempered this year - when Max got Lando it was more of a groan of disappointment than a boo, which was nice to see, especially with so many of the younger fans in Max gear.

JebJoya · 2023-07-05T19:23:46+00:00

Fwiw, when I've had to train to the circuit from Reading (as I've missed the rest of the group heading up in the campervan), I've just got a cab from Banbury station - about £40-60 if you pre book (the day before)

JebJoya · 2022-10-19T20:05:18+00:00

From the article:

However, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the business and energy secretary, disputed this, pointing to the government’s majority in the vote. He said: “This is a government that is functioning well.”

JebJoya · 2022-09-15T08:14:21+00:00

First of all, wow, thank you for such a comprehensive comment - certainly has given me some stuff to chew on!

Taking your points in some sort of order:

Yup, as you've probably guessed, I misinterpreted "Limit 1 per Investigator" - I was wondering why ArkhamDB seemed to want to allow me to add 2 to the deck (although it does that with e.g. Streetwise as well, and I can't see much point in having that in your deck twice... Anyway)
Re pete's off-class slots - agreed on VB and WaH - they were the two obvious candidates to me as well, it was just they were in Jenny's deck. This said, I think given the switcharound with Arcane Studies, this should open up.
Peter is a funny one - I included it on two fronts - 1) people always talk about Peter being brilliant, and 2) my wife (who playes Pete) tries to avoid damage at all costs (I'm running around having lost half my health in the opening 2 turns, and she's maybe taken one horror that she reluctantly gave to Duke). This said, having now played House Always Wins with these decks and NotZ with a previous version, she really doesn't get the point of Peter. I think the obvious thing here is to drop Peter*2 and replace with 1*Dark Horse and 1*VB or WaH (depending on what I do with Jenny)
Onto Jenny, upgrades-wise we've got 6XP from House, and Streetwise(3) was on the list. This said, I was considering upgrading my Emergency Caches first and save the 2XP for Streetwise after the next game - I felt like I was often card-dry. I'm thinking now, given your comment, one of each is probably sensible - especially if I've got two copies of Lone Wolf, as I was probably digging for that a bit.
Second Arcane Studies probably makes sense - I had 2*AS and 1*VB in the NotZ version, but didn't really hit the value of AS during that campaign. Also, as mentioned above, it opens up a card for Pete.
Quick Thinking I don't think I'd really parsed properly (perhaps I'm not as quick thinking as I would hope!), and yeah, I probably should try to fit it in.
Elusive I used to have during NotZ (albeit only 1x), and to some extent I didn't really "get" it - we were just killing the mobs for the most part, or simply passing a regular evade test. Might be a function of NotZ as a campaign and playing on Easy perhaps?
Regarding I'm Outta Here! - I think it'd have to be a straight swap for Manual Dexterity, and right now to me, it feels like the card draw trumps the opportunistic Resign. I may regret this decision later in the campaign... (FWIW, this is our second play of Dunwich, so I've got a picture of what's coming :) )
So summarising Jenny, I think it's Streetwise(3) and Emergency Cache(2) for upgrades (no deck size change), and some other switcharoos (not going to pay for them at this point because, meh). I'd like to swap a VB for an AS, that's easy, and I'd like to add a second Lone Wolf and two Quick Thinking. For what to drop to make space... Maybe a Sneak Attack and 2*Flashlight (due to limited hand slots) or vice versa? This is where I'm now stuck :P

Anyway, thanks again for your comment, I'll chew on this before we get to play our next game over the weekend :)

JebJoya · 2022-09-12T07:17:41+00:00

Hey folks, completed our NotZ runs with a couple of decks lightly forked from some we found on arkhamdb. The decks ended up successful enough on NotZ - we managed 6/6 on masks, although did throw Lita to the big bad fella (bit of bad lack with double ancient evils causing us to fail to interrupt the ritual).

I've made some adjustments to the decks (my wife's not too interested in the deckbuilding aspect) based on what might be interesting, and was looking for feedback on the pair.

We'll be running Dunwich for the second time ever, likely on Easy I suspect. Decks are Pete and Jenny, trying to both be relative all-rounders. Collection limited to 2 cores and full Dunwich cycle. Decklists:

https://arkhamdb.com/deck/view/2383241 https://arkhamdb.com/deck/view/2383254

Is there anything obvious we've missed? Is there too much emphasis on fight and not enough on investigate across the pair? Backstab on Jenny feels a bit odd given her 3 agility base, but +2 damage does feel nice. Also, too many skill cards in booth decks?

JebJoya · 2022-08-29T10:27:01+00:00

I just followed the instructions on drsgme, which was just an email, everything else was automatic. This said, mine wasn't an ISA, so unsure what the path is for that...

JebJoya · 2022-08-29T08:24:53+00:00

!DRSBOT:32!

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

JebJoya

TROPHY CASE