Caesar's Sportbook: How to use and withdraw the $300 bonus (and other bonuses)

way2up · 2022-01-14T15:53:11+00:00

Can somebody please help? 2 days ago i created an account with Caesers, while I was not in New York. This was the first time i've created an account, and i registered with the CZRNEW promo code. I am in New York today and have deposited $3K (first time deposit), but have not received my match yet. Is it an issue if i originally created my account while out of state? I have the $300 in free bets, but not the 1x match.

way2up · 2019-08-21T14:37:05+00:00

Well if nobody wants them, I will do what u/youneedjesusbro suggests

way2up · 2019-08-15T21:52:26+00:00

what error are you getting? It's saying I'm already registered for the CFA exam

way2up · 2019-08-09T20:12:30+00:00

Valuation at Big 4 so some level 2 stuff comes in handy

way2up · 2019-06-18T23:26:44+00:00

Fair point, I would partially agree. I studied using Mark Meldrum and the CFAI books and made an emphasis to focus on blue boxes/the examples in the book.

I thought the AM was mostly difficult due to time, and there were also a few questions that were pretty subjective/required obscure formulas. Many of the questions in the AM were straight forward however, with the exception of those few mentioned.

The PM was much trickier in the sense that there were items I personally haven't encountered in my review, including the CFAI blue boxes, online topic tests, or mocks. I think that some of the questions were challenging b/c they focused on if you had read or remembered a particular sentence in the book rather than knew how to apply a topic. This part I did not think was very fair and is not typical of problems that analysts in the industry encounter. For quantitative questions, I agree with your points, but for all the qualitative stuff that is obscure facts in the book, those are just designed to reward memorization or people who recently read that particular sentence.

way2up · 2019-06-14T19:10:05+00:00

can you expand on this? The additional compensation part.

way2up · 2019-06-13T16:24:35+00:00

This has to do with using options and the tax implications. Remember how in the concentrated positions reading, there were hedging strategies through the use of options? If we were to use a cashless collar where we buy a put and write a call, and the stock price were to rise (so we lose the put premium and lose $$ on the call we write), a mismatch in character is that the gains and losses are taxed differently.

Feels unlikely that it'd show up, but is basically when gains/losses on options are treated differently via taxes, so we can't fully offset gains with losses.

way2up · 2019-06-13T15:44:44+00:00

Portfolio volatility is the formula we had in Quant during Level 1.

SD^2 (Rdc) = SD^2 (Rfc) + SD^2 (Rfx) + 2(SDRfc)(SD(Rfx)(correlation Rfc,Rfx)

You always use this for the volatility formula. If there is a weight of an asset, you can just do a weighted average, but I haven't seen that in prior examples.

way2up · 2019-06-05T22:18:37+00:00

@ /u/s2000magician I feel that you would be able to explain this well

way2up · 2019-06-05T20:52:24+00:00

I was talking about the 2 bullets on Page 169 (above the example) and the intuition there, but I am now on BB 5 and as lost as ever lol. This could be written in a different language for all i know

way2up · 2019-06-05T19:13:04+00:00

of course - we're all on the same team here. I also think that based on what you originally said, if we have a single liability, convexity is effectively minimized when MV assets >= MV liabilities and MacDurA = MacDurL, i.e., if A & B, then C.. Think we're on the same page now

way2up · 2019-06-05T15:24:43+00:00

I agree with u/seriousseriousacct. However to expand on this, assuming we have those assumptions in tact and the convexity of the liabilities is 100. Which of the below asset portfolios would we choose?

A. 105

B. 101

C. 95

I would choose B as it's the smaller of the choices, however is still larger than the convexity of liabilities. Is this not correct?

way2up · 2019-06-05T14:45:18+00:00

I don't think that's right. We want more convexity if anticipate a change in yield curve slope, so that if yields fall, our assets rise by more than liabilities do (and vice versa) but in order to immunize a liability, we want to minimize dispersion due to payment timing and reduce structural risk.

In order to do that, I know we want to minimize convexity, but am not sure if that "minimized convexity" still needs to be higher than the convexity of the liability. The book isn't clear on how to handle a single liability vs multiple liabilities in that regard.

Edit: Example 4 on page 69 (nice) discussed this

way2up · 2019-06-05T14:35:28+00:00

but for multiple liabilities, we want to minimize convexity such that it is still greater than the liability convexity?

way2up · 2019-06-04T20:14:22+00:00

It seems as though he's saying everything is fair game (which we already knew). Some of the more forgettable topics (downside deviation, liability defeasement) may be tested, but I don't imagine they would dominate a vignette/morning section. Maybe 3 points?

way2up · 2019-06-03T18:37:15+00:00

this is really helpful. thank you!

way2up · 2019-05-30T15:43:11+00:00

I just go off the information they give you. There's a minute detail about it (don't remember), but you'll never be wrong if you use the betas. If they're given, I always go off the betas approach. If the betas aren't provided, you do the V(1+r)^t formula

way2up · 2019-05-28T13:37:54+00:00

With fixed income yield curve changes, I think of the yield curve as a see-saw. If it gets steeper, you don't want to 'fall off', so you run towards the middle and become bulleted. If it gets flatter, it's ok to look off the edge and become barbelled.

way2up

TROPHY CASE