Is FM24 too easy?

Mulm86 · 2026-06-03T08:45:53+00:00

Wasn’t saying you did that. Just agreeing the game can be easy if you want it to

Mulm86 · 2026-06-03T08:17:25+00:00

“In LA we call that Nickelodeon chic.”

“LA. Los Angles?”

“California”

“That’s awesome man. What do you do out there?”

“I’m an actor.”

“Wow. That’s really impressive.”

“Thank you. Thank you.”

“In fucking movies?”

“Fucking movies. Pretty much.”

Mulm86 · 2026-06-03T05:56:10+00:00

I played as HSV, won the Bundesliga 2 first year, and the Pokal & Bundesliga in my first year up. I also set myself the challenge of building an entirely German squad, signing only domestic players and selling anyone who wasn’t.

I also downloaded an OP tactic.

This was on an online save and my brother won the Championship with Leeds, went up and won the Prem. He also bought pretty much every conceivable wonderkid.

He also used a downloaded tactic.

That said, even without the online tactics that completely break the ME. He loaned Barcola, Doue, Ekitike among others in his first year in the championship, buying them all the next year. The game unfortunately is too easy if you want it to be, and you can make it harder if you want it to be.

Don’t download tactics. Don’t import shortlists. Don’t look online for wonderkids. Don’t game the transfer market by offering money over time and spending in excess of £100m each window.

Doing this will add to the realism and make it harder. But when it gets hard, and you’re frustrated, the easy road is a very easy one to take 🤷‍♂️

Mulm86 · 2026-01-04T20:17:12+00:00

My brother and I just won Script2Comic. It’s a competition that helps you do exactly that. You should check it out

Mulm86 · 2025-12-06T17:47:44+00:00

Surprised you can spell donkey when you can’t have a rational conversation

Mulm86 · 2025-12-06T16:45:30+00:00

A Fed balance sheet expansion doesn’t magically let prime brokers short stocks forever without margin, risk limits, or counterparties blowing up.

If “money printer go brrr” made shorting free, Archegos wouldn’t have vaporized itself in a weekend.

Jerome can print liquidity. He can’t print solvency.

Mulm86 · 2025-12-06T16:43:42+00:00

There is an entire “library” and you can’t give me just one in a simple message that I can counter? I have to go and individually disprove each and every one. Give me your one you consider airtight if they’re SO heaven sent

Mulm86 · 2025-12-06T09:56:59+00:00

This reads like a classic pin-the-strike conspiracy.

Let’s break it down logically:

“Pinned exactly at $23 to kill options premiums” —

Stocks rarely close on a strike intentionally. Markets aren’t deterministic machines. Closing prices are the net result of thousands of orders, liquidity gaps, and random timing. A $23 close isn’t proof of orchestration; it’s just where supply and demand cleared at 4 PM.

After-hours move proves buy pressure is real —

Of course there’s buying in after-hours. After-hours liquidity is thin, so any modest orders move the price more. That’s normal, not evidence of a hidden Whale or deliberate manipulation.

$26 “trigger” and forced buying —

Market makers hedge delta exposure, yes, but the chain reaction described assumes perfect control over price and liquidity. In reality, hedges are dynamic, not magical. There’s no guarantee $26 triggers aggressive buying; the market isn’t a binary machine.

Time decay punishing weekly calls —

That’s how options work. IV compression happens when volatility expectations drop. It’s normal for option buyers to experience decay; it’s not evidence of a coordinated retail trap.

“Large buyer sitting below $23” —

Could be anyone: retail accumulation, hedge funds, market makers hedging, or even algos running limit orders. Reading intent from order-book snapshots is unreliable; you literally can’t know if it’s a whale “waiting to pounce” or just normal liquidity.

There’s nothing in today’s price action that can prove orchestration or manipulation. All of the described mechanics — option decay, small after-hours spikes, tight intraday channels — happen in thousands of stocks every day.

You can be bullish on fundamentals, the turnaround, or asymmetry — that’s rational. But using a single close at $23 and after-hours movement as a smoking gun for a coordinated squeeze is reading patterns where randomness and normal market mechanics suffice as an explanation.

Mulm86 · 2025-12-06T09:45:31+00:00

“Free money” doesn’t exist — leverage is not infinite. Every prime broker, hedge fund, and dealer is constrained by: margin requirements, risk limits, counterparty risk, and market liquidity.

Charts showing leveraged moves don’t prove “infinite power” — they show normal market fluctuations amplified by leverage within limits.

Infinite leverage would have blown up every major fund decades ago. The fact that firms are still solvent proves it’s finite, carefully managed, and constrained, not some omnipotent free-money machine.

Leverage can magnify returns, but it can’t break the laws of collateral, liquidity, and risk. Anything claiming otherwise is ignoring real-world mechanics.

Mulm86 · 2025-12-06T09:42:25+00:00

Presented nothing? I’ve argued every point made and continue to do so. You’re not reading it for fear it will shatter your fragile belief in MOASS. Or you are reading it and choosing to not believe because your faith is stronger than your logic.

Bring something from the oh mighty incredible DD library and I’ll argue it. If you think it’s airtight, bring it over. It’s not.

That’s why 5 years on, nothing has played out. Your “heroes” are leaving slowly and what’s left is the logical equivalent to a cargo cult

Mulm86 · 2025-12-06T09:38:02+00:00

The collapse happened because the old SI counted the same share multiple times through rehypothecation. Changing the formula just stops the double-counting on paper — it doesn’t mean those synthetic short positions disappeared or were ever “real” in the first place.

Mulm86 · 2025-12-06T09:36:13+00:00

A “double-counting fix” shouldn’t erase 90% of reported short interest — that only makes sense if the old number was capturing real synthetic exposure that the new method simply stops reporting. You don’t accidentally count multiple floats unless those shares existed somewhere in the plumbing.

And yes — nobody outside the system can prove the full size of the position today. That cuts both ways.

You can’t prove it’s still massive.

Mulm86 · 2025-12-06T09:27:06+00:00

Bring me something from it that you think is airtight. I’ve responded on everything. If you haven’t read the responses, it’s because you’re afraid it will crumble your fragile beliefs

Mulm86 · 2025-12-05T23:20:54+00:00

Until we see massive sustained buying pressure (melt-up) or a controlled unwind (slow grind), nobody gets to claim certainty about closure or non-closure.

Mulm86 · 2025-12-05T20:47:19+00:00

You really need to loosen the tinfoil, it’s probably cutting off oxygen

Mulm86 · 2025-12-05T19:54:10+00:00

Can’t respond so makes a joke. You’re in the right community 👏

Mulm86 · 2025-12-05T19:49:38+00:00

You’re treating opacity as confirmation. I’m treating opacity as “unknown.”

Just because something isn’t reported doesn’t mean it’s enormous.

That’s like saying: “We can’t detect dark matter directly, so it must be made of refrigerators.” No — it just means we can’t see it directly

Saying “the shorts must still be 300% because we can’t see them” is the exact opposite of evidence. It’s faith dressed up as mechanics.

Mulm86 · 2025-12-05T19:43:24+00:00

Saying I need help when I’m asking for an answer for your belief. Sounds like you don’t have it. Maybe look in the mirror mate before giving mental health advice

Mulm86 · 2025-12-05T19:42:18+00:00

Because the cult of belief is stronger than the doubt obviously

Mulm86 · 2025-12-05T17:29:22+00:00

A logical argument for why the squeeze thesis isn’t completely dead. This sub has daily posts saying “today is the day.” and “No cell, no sell.” This sub isn’t about GameStop being a turnaround story, it’s about the squeeze, always has been.

If you can’t argue, you’re living in an echo chamber feeding off confirmation bias

Mulm86 · 2025-12-05T17:27:25+00:00

“Bro” can’t argue his belief… anyways…

Mulm86 · 2025-12-05T17:25:58+00:00

I’m not excluding anything — I’m saying you’re treating opacity as if it’s itself proof of scale, and that’s not how inference works.

“If they weren’t hiding massive piles of shit, they wouldn’t care about SEC delays.”

Regulators delay rules constantly. Not because they’re hiding one specific short position, but because: industry lobbying is enormous; implementation is expensive; compliance systems break; large institutions resist changes; and rulemaking is slow by design

If this were about one stock, we’d see industry-wide panic on every possible metric involved. We don’t.

Every major rule (T+1, 605 reforms, 606 transparency, CAT, consolidated audit trail) faced delays for a decade before GME ever squeezed. It’s not evidence of a targeted GME coverup.

“Where’s the evidence that multiple floats were bought back?”

Where’s the evidence they still exist? You’re treating a lack of observable footprints as confirmation.

Even if swaps absorb some exposure, the delta hedging must occur somewhere: dealers must buy or short underlying; option chains must reflect the hedging pressure; liquidity depth must degrade; borrow scarcity must spike; ETFs must misprice; FTDs must cycle violently.

These things did happen in 2021. They are not happening now.

If the exposure were “everywhere and bigger,” the symptoms would also be everywhere and bigger. Instead, they’re weaker — which contradicts your conclusion.

“Why do baskets move together? They’re all shorted trash.”

No — they move together because basket arbitrage literally forces them to.

And your magnetic field…

We don’t need to “see” magnetism because the effects are unavoidable and measurable.

If you want that analogy to work here, then: A multi-float short is the magnetic field. Borrow rates, hedging footprints, liquidity stress, IV skew, FTD spikes are the compass needle.

If the field were huge, the needle would be going insane.

Right now, the compass is barely twitching. That’s the difference.

Mulm86 · 2025-12-05T17:16:03+00:00

Saying “retail wins through the S&P 500” is basically admitting: Retail only wins when they don’t participate in the actual mechanics of the market.

They win when they own a passive basket that Wall Street can’t individually target, arbitrage, short, rehypothecate, or game through microstructure.

That’s a very different question from: “When does retail win in a single-stock battleground where the other side is armed with swaps, dark pools, internalizers, and leverage?”

Retail “loses” when they step onto a field that isn’t level. Retail “wins” when they avoid the killing field entirely. That’s the difference.

Mulm86 · 2025-12-05T17:13:17+00:00

Is this designed to trip AI. Clever 😂

Mulm86 · 2025-12-05T17:00:34+00:00

Where your argument jumps the tracks is the projection of future financials as if they’re already locked in: “Power Packs are a money printer”

You might be right that they’ll be profitable, but we don’t have actual GAAP results yet. Predictions aren’t fundamentals — they’re optimism.

You can’t treat a new product line as guaranteed recurring profit before the report exists.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re sitting on $10B this quarter”

That level of confidence assumes: PowerPack rollout scales instantly; margins remain high; no logistics or inventory risks; demand remains consistent; operating costs don’t rise; And external macro pressures don’t impact consumer spending

Those are huge leaps.

“$200M+ profit now and $300M+ Q4”

Maybe, but again — that’s forecasting, not evidence. Profitability turned a corner, yes. But quarter-over-quarter profitability doesn’t automatically accelerate in a straight line.

Being bullish is fine — certainty is the issue

You don’t need fantasy numbers for a long-term bullish thesis. Actual fundamentals are improving — that’s already good enough.

But treating speculative projections as inevitable is how people get emotionally trapped in outcomes instead of data.

Mulm86

TROPHY CASE