| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shar Tegral
   |
Posted - 2007.09.21 15:19:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Tivern Maniva
What i do find confusing is why my particular ipo seems to be of grate concern to Dr Slurm.
Heck, I can answer this: Your's is exactly perfect for example making. Yours is now active via funding from some knowns and unknowns. Has a bit of drama (My entrance and exit) and is rolling forward to a fate currently unknown. Other potential examples have not progressed as far.
Any harder questions?
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 15:21:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Tivern Maniva on 21/09/2007 15:22:55
Yes. Why would i seek further security when it was uneeded and still be posting here if i intended to walk with the isk ? why waste my time ?
On the note that if u follow the times of my posting u will see that ive had less than around 3 hours sleep in the last 48 hours. Due to setting up this ipo and seeing its off of a good start. Now either im either stupid , insane , both. Or dedicated to making this work. Your call.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 15:37:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Tivern Maniva
Yes. Why would i seek further security when it was uneeded and still be posting here if i intended to walk with the isk ? why waste my time ?
Easy.
Success with this one will grant you access to a greater amount of isk to steal. Paranoia + intelligence is a true curse. The ability to rationalize every possible outcome into some horrific negative can lead to a very empty and sterile life and/or game play. No matter how many efforts you make you can never defeat the combinations.
Any harder questions?
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 15:38:00 -
[34]
One last one.. got any sleeping tablets i need a nap..?
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 15:39:00 -
[35]
Honestly I think Slurm is a bit off-base in going so far in this thread. I know he is just trying to inform the community of a weird pattern of small IPO's starting up, but that is now accomplished. We all see the pattern. Patterns don't always imply a correlation, they can be random. Especially with all the attention being payed to IPO's these days based on EVE-TV, the econ "dev", etc.
When an IPO is secured via a trusted member of the community 100% it is really hard to continue being suspicious if you ask me. If he runs he runs... I lose out on the returns on my 500 mil, not the end of the world. Much better than losing out on that 500 mill too. Honestly, the main reason I invest is to help the player run business aspect of this game flourishing... any profits are a nice boost. I refuse to invest if I think something sounds too fishy... Ambo's IPO meets this criteria for me, but it seems he may even have his IPO backed up 100% so perhaps I am wrong there.
And I personally hate the idea of using pen and paper to do differential equations when you could use a super-computer to do the same thing instantly. Once I know how to do something with pen and paper I personally don't see the benefit to continue doing it with pen and paper.
A better example. I always hated people who said a Raven was overkill for level 3 missions. Of course it was overkill, that was the entire point. Overkill is good. When trying to maximize profits you don't struggle with a tiny ship when you could use a massive ship to do the same thing much quicker and easier. Sure, I could complete all level 3 missions in a ferox... I did that already... I could complete them much faster in a Raven, so I used a Raven. Yet I constantly got told I was a noob for not using pen and paper (a ferox or a caracal or an assault frig) to do them. No, the person not maximizing his profits is the one who is the noob.
As to if Tivern really needs a freighter... probably not. But hey, it's his IPO and his business, so thats his concern. Maybe he does... he obviously isn't going to tell me exactly what he is trading so it's hard to know. But there are definitely reasons he would need a freighter and if he wants it and finds it profitable then thats his choice, as long as he returns some decent profits I don't care.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 15:42:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Shar Tegral
[
Success with this one will grant you access to a greater amount of isk to steal.
So youve finally come to realise that this ipo will not be a scam and are now moving onto the fact a later ipo might be. so why not just once garner the thought that well maby this one will go ok. itll all get payed back. Then venture your bets come the next ipo ( its still not confirmed there will even be another ipo ) and judge the risk then ? Any reason your stuck in the future rather than seeing the possibilities of the present ?
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 16:00:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Tivern Maniva
stuff
I've not come to realize anything regarding you at all. Nothing positive in specific nor negative in specific. Just because a person can state reasonable arguments, clauses, or cases does not mean they personally subscribe any faith in what they've said. They just present what is reasonably possible. Don't try bandying words with a career sophist. 
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 16:02:00 -
[38]
Tou'che I think u got me on that one im outta responses i need sleep soon >.>
i just want a response from Dr Slurm with his reasons ;S no doubght ill get them due time. Not that i hold any sort of personal grudge. Just curiosity ..
|
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 16:26:00 -
[39]
lol Shar you love stirring up trouble
|
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 16:44:00 -
[40]
Yeah, Some of it was called for tho ;)
|
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 18:18:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Tivern Maniva
Tou'che I think u got me on that one im outta responses i need sleep soon >.>
i just want a response from Dr Slurm with his reasons ;S no doubght ill get them due time. Not that i hold any sort of personal grudge. Just curiosity ..
I've already explained my doubt in your own IPO thread. The fact that you are secured with EBANK really doesn't make much of a difference to me. It just sets the bar for the scam higher.
As for my own corp history every corp I've been in I was either the CEO or a director. Some corps were loose associations with friends, but otherwise I've mostly been solo except for my alts. I can't see my history cause I'm at work.
@Hexxx: I fought against the Standards body because I didn't want it to be the cool kids club. It essentially came around anyways, but anyone can join in on the fun and not a select body. Although if any of the regulars here say don't invest I would be surprised if anyone did.
As for your IPO template, I really did like it in itself. I just didn't like the availability of a template to a would be scammer.
I'm almost sorry I started this thread, but not really. I was in a pretty snarky mood when I created it.
The thought did occur to me create an IPO with the intent of it being a fake scam. Like create an alt post a whine asking for ISK, get the investment, and then say hey you were just scammed. Then of course give the ISK back. Would be a bit of a wake up call to some.
<sig>
Tired of the inane ramblings of the incompetent? Click here
</sig> |
EBANK Ricdic
Eve-Tech Savings n Loans
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 18:49:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Dr Slurm
I've already explained my doubt in your own IPO thread. The fact that you are secured with EBANK really doesn't make much of a difference to me. It just sets the bar for the scam higher.
A person scamming corporate dividends totalling maybe 100m when he could have scammed 1.8b when he had those funds... This makes no sense. The only way I could agree with you and Shar in a limited fashion would be in that the next IPO he does (if any) may be bigger and better, and lead to a scam. Having said that, he is well aware that he will need a whole new/updated business plan and probably more security protocols in play.
Frankly, I want to see these new guys get their feet wet. I want them to start small and work their way up the food chain. Sure, some may ultimately turn into a scam, but I feel for every scammer there are 5 other legitimate players trying to follow the same path. We need to guide these people, remove or limit the reasons or ways they may want or be inclined to scam. We cannot just ignore all the new blood as it does enhance our market sector. For every scam that has occured in these forums over the years, a new security protocol or requirement has been provided to try and limit the same thing happening again.
Quote:
@Hexxx: I fought against the Standards body because I didn't want it to be the cool kids club. It essentially came around anyways, but anyone can join in on the fun and not a select body. Although if any of the regulars here say don't invest I would be surprised if anyone did.
So you don't want new people or even existing ones without specific MD reputation to start ventures because of the inherent risks involved but you are also against a governing body in place to try and weed out the bad ones? Should all future IPO's etc be removed instead?
Maybe you can advise who you believe fits the criteria of starting up a personal venture. I am very interested in hearing this.
Quote:
As for your IPO template, I really did like it in itself. I just didn't like the availability of a template to a would be scammer.
I agree completely with this point and believe I also argued it back when Hexxx released it. To this day I still believe it is a dangerous tool in the wrong hands.
Quote:
The thought did occur to me create an IPO with the intent of it being a fake scam. Like create an alt post a whine asking for ISK, get the investment, and then say hey you were just scammed. Then of course give the ISK back. Would be a bit of a wake up call to some.
The funny thing is, you probably wouldn't get any investors. Most new businesses that start up here for half decent amounts of isk (ie above 500m) are grilled pretty hard or required to undergo certain security mechanisms before the investors start looking twice at them. Quite possibly your post of a scam IPO would result in minimal or zero response from the public, and it may be you getting the wakeup call 
No scams have happened in quite some time. I believe this has a lot to do with the firing squad and most scammers not being able to withstand it or *****ing under pressure, or not having the consistency to complete their business.
I am sure there are some ventures out there that have been legit and we have turned away, but the results are there. Zero succesful scams in our part of the forums for a good 5-10 months considering we quash approximately 1-5 businesses a week.
|
LaVista Vista
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 18:50:00 -
[43]
Lets see..
We got:
*FUD? Check!
*Paranoia? Theres enough for everybody here!
*Conspiracy theories? I think this thread IS a conspiracy to get small guys out of business.
This is becomming the new CAOD 
|
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 18:53:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Dr Slurm
I've already explained my doubt in your own IPO thread. The fact that you are secured with EBANK really doesn't make much of a difference to me. It just sets the bar for the scam higher.
Well thanks for the Response. Would u be willing to sit and chat with me ingame. Altho Your not an investor im still curious as to what exactly causes you to think my ipo is a scam. rather than spam the forums will more junk not really relevent to the topic at hand. Id quite like to know how u would suggest either 1. Improving the Quality of the ipo so as to reduce the chance of a scam. or 2. New methods of securing it so i cannot scam.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 19:00:00 -
[45]
Originally by: EBANK Ricdic
The only way I could agree with you and Shar in a limited fashion would be in that the next IPO he does (if any) may be bigger and better, and lead to a scam.
Let me restate... my concerns were expressed prior to the arrangement with EBANK Ricdic. That does changes things tremendously. Sureties often do. My position in this thread was not that Cinderbrood is a fraud or scam. This thread was speculative in nature so potential speculations were discussed. Cinderbrood asked some questions that I answered from the paranoid part of the field. But I don't say this is what I think. I said this is what will be said... statement offerings by me from my experience with the paranoid/troublemaking part of the field. So pbbbbbtttttt... go pick on Slurmy there. He's a better target anyway. 
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 19:03:00 -
[46]
In shars defence we had a chat ingame and turned out to be quite freindly and non hostile
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 19:28:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Tivern Maniva
In shars defence we had a chat ingame and turned out to be quite freindly and non hostile
Nonsense, he is actually an evil evil person who eats fried babies for breakfast.
I still don't get the problem people have once an IPO is secured. Sure, someone could still run away with the money + profits... but the investors haven't lost anything. There is really no fear when investing if this is the case. I think the lack of scams has simply made people a bit too paranoid that they are due to be scammed. Remember, even if you flip a coin 100 times and it lands on heads every time it doesn't mean that the 101st flip is more or less likely to land on heads or tails. It's still 50/50. Thus every investment should be treated as a possible scam... but just because there hasn't been a scam lately doesn't mean there is a greater chance of a scam in the future.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 20:05:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Shadarle
Nonsense, he is actually an evil evil person who eats fried babies for breakfast.
Well that to.
Originally by: Shadarle
I still don't get the problem people have once an IPO is secured. Sure, someone could still run away with the money + profits... but the investors haven't lost anything. There is really no fear when investing if this is the case. I think the lack of scams has simply made people a bit too paranoid that they are due to be scammed. Remember, even if you flip a coin 100 times and it lands on heads every time it doesn't mean that the 101st flip is more or less likely to land on heads or tails. It's still 50/50. Thus every investment should be treated as a possible scam... but just because there hasn't been a scam lately doesn't mean there is a greater chance of a scam in the future.
This = True
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 20:15:00 -
[49]
Edited by: FastLearner on 21/09/2007 20:15:47
Originally by: Shadarle
Remember, even if you flip a coin 100 times and it lands on heads every time it doesn't mean that the 101st flip is more or less likely to land on heads or tails. It's still 50/50.
Can't agree with this - the odds the next flip will be heads are greater than the odds the next flip will be tails. That's because after flipping a coin 100 times and all getting heads it's more likely the coin has 2 heads or is otherwise biased than that it's an unbiased coin with a very strange run of results.
I have a few concerns with new IPOs being 100% secured with cash:
1. The fact that it can be done means that the IPO is a "play" one, rather than someone who genuinely needs to raise the ISK to do business. If securing IPOs in this way becomes a de-facto standard then we reach a situation where the only people who can successfully launch IPOs are people who don't need to launch one anyway.
2. By removing the trust element from initial small IPOs, we end up moving it to larger later ones. Not only does this do investors a disservice (saving them from small scams and, in the process, maybe misleading some into thinking someone is trustworthy when in fact they were never in a position to abuse trust), it also does the IPO launcher a disservice - by not allowing them to demonstrate their trustworthy nature.
3. IPOs secured with cash no longer get the same scrutiny of their plans that ones without such security get.
4. Securing all IPOs with the same few people just moves everyone's eggs into the same basket. There's no rational basis to believe that after X months/years of apparently honest business someone is inherently totally trustworthy. It's unfortunate that there's no real means to distinguish between an honest businessman and a clever scammer who hasn't yet reached their target amount.
I just feel uncomfortable that whenever there's a new IPO a few people immediately start screaming that the IPO launcher should secure all their assets with someone THEY don't know, just so other people who don't know them won't have to make a leap of faith in trusting them. It promulgates a situation where the main criteria for successfully launching an IPO becomes that you don't actually need one, rather than that you have a demonstrably sound business plan/experience/references.
I didn't secure my IPO with third-parties. I won't be securing any of my future investment opportunities with third-parties. Those who scream for third-party security can go invest in all the worse opportunities available which rely on dubious claims of "security" (which generally involve transferring the risk of scam rather than removing it) rather than demonstrating outstanding returns for their area of business.
And if anyone launching a new IPO really DOES want to secure it with a third-party, I'm quite happy to do so with Fury Bank. 1.4% return per week on escrowed ISK. But I'd far rather you tried to sell your plans on their (and your) merits than relied on "I don't really need an IPO and can prove it".
|
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 20:27:00 -
[50]
Originally by: FastLearner
Can't agree with this - the odds the next flip will be heads are greater than the odds the next flip will be tails. That's because after flipping a coin 100 times and all getting heads it's more likely the coin has 2 heads or is otherwise biased than that it's an unbiased coin with a very strange run of results.
I have a few concerns with new IPOs being 100% secured with cash:
1. The fact that it can be done means that the IPO is a "play" one, rather than someone who genuinely needs to raise the ISK to do business. If securing IPOs in this way becomes a de-facto standard then we reach a situation where the only people who can successfully launch IPOs are people who don't need to launch one anyway.
2. By removing the trust element from initial small IPOs, we end up moving it to larger later ones. Not only does this do investors a disservice (saving them from small scams and, in the process, maybe misleading some into thinking someone is trustworthy when in fact they were never in a position to abuse trust), it also does the IPO launcher a disservice - by not allowing them to demonstrate their trustworthy nature.
3. IPOs secured with cash no longer get the same scrutiny of their plans that ones without such security get.
4. Securing all IPOs with the same few people just moves everyone's eggs into the same basket. There's no rational basis to believe that after X months/years of apparently honest business someone is inherently totally trustworthy. It's unfortunate that there's no real means to distinguish between an honest businessman and a clever scammer who hasn't yet reached their target amount.
I just feel uncomfortable that whenever there's a new IPO a few people immediately start screaming that the IPO launcher should secure all their assets with someone THEY don't know, just so other people who don't know them won't have to make a leap of faith in trusting them. It promulgates a situation where the main criteria for successfully launching an IPO becomes that you don't actually need one, rather than that you have a demonstrably sound business plan/experience/references.
I didn't secure my IPO with third-parties. I won't be securing any of my future investment opportunities with third-parties. Those who scream for third-party security can go invest in all the worse opportunities available which rely on dubious claims of "security" (which generally involve transferring the risk of scam rather than removing it) rather than demonstrating outstanding returns for their area of business.
And if anyone launching a new IPO really DOES want to secure it with a third-party, I'm quite happy to do so with Fury Bank. 1.4% return per week on escrowed ISK. But I'd far rather you tried to sell your plans on their (and your) merits than relied on "I don't really need an IPO and can prove it".
I think it depends on how its done. Now yes im slightly biased. But i gained funding 1.8 billion out of 2 billion before any security had been mentioned. infact the last 200 million came from ebank via the security. It was only after then was it posted that security in the form of isk held via a 3rd party had been obtained as a "bonus" as such The bonus being that no investor stood to lose isk other than a freind of mine who offered the isk. So in such no security was actually required for me to find the isk. But considered as an afterthought to help ease any worry investors may have had.
Now im not saying all Ipo's should do this. But if the option is there i dont think it sould be shy'ed away from.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 21:11:00 -
[51]
Edited by: FastLearner on 21/09/2007 21:12:52
Originally by: Tivern Maniva
I think it depends on how its done. Now yes im slightly biased. But i gained funding 1.8 billion out of 2 billion before any security had been mentioned. infact the last 200 million came from ebank via the security. It was only after then was it posted that security in the form of isk held via a 3rd party had been obtained as a "bonus" as such The bonus being that no investor stood to lose isk other than a freind of mine who offered the isk. So in such no security was actually required for me to find the isk. But considered as an afterthought to help ease any worry investors may have had.
Now im not saying all Ipo's should do this. But if the option is there i dont think it sould be shy'ed away from.
My comments were never aimed specifically at your IPO. But let's take a look at what's actually happening - then see if anyone can spot how it makes a mockery of the whole IPO system.
I'm looking here at JUST the 200 million EBank invested in your IPO.
Your friend (who could be your alt for I know - not an accusation, just a statement of fact) deposits 200 million in Ebank to secure that portion of your IPO. No doubt he's getting a below market-rate of interest on that. Ebank then invests that same 200 million ISK in your IPO, with the promise of above market returns. Does anyone see something a bit wierd in that?
If not, then here's an offer to anyone reading the forums.
Offer me 10% per month and I'll happily invest in you - provided you deposit the amount you want to invest with me first and I get to keep it if you don't deliver. And I'll pay you 8% interest per month on the funds I "hold" in escrow.
Do you still not see what's happening? What's actually HAPPENS if you take me up on my offer? I get 2% profit per month risk-free on whatever amount you name. In return you get to claim that you ran an IPO and proved yourself trustworthy/competent/whatever. But it's all an illusion.
Now I agree your situation is slightly different - as you'd recieved (or had promised) the bulk of your investment before you got into the "secured" game. But I'd argue that by securing your IPO you actually devalue whatever results you achieve (in terms of trustworthiness at least). And allowing someone securing your assets to then invest them in you is a strange decision - as it makes than portion of your IPO a total mockery: your friend invested that 200 million but with the profits going to someone else (less whatever interest he gets paid) in return for their endorsement.
EDIT: The first principle of any escrow agent is that they have no involvement in the actual deal.
|
Rhiraven
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 22:01:00 -
[52]
I've been reading intently. I don't really have a vested interest in the conclusions drawn here since a scam with my IPO's business model would be ********, but I thought it was a good conversation...
Until...
Quote:
Can't agree with this - the odds the next flip will be heads are greater than the odds the next flip will be tails.
There are two possibilities here. FastLearner failed statistics in high school, or there's a troll in the field. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he has at least some semblance of logical reasoning capability and go with the latter option.
Don't feed the troll.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 22:09:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Rhiraven
I've been reading intently. I don't really have a vested interest in the conclusions drawn here since a scam with my IPO's business model would be ********, but I thought it was a good conversation...
Until...
Quote:
Can't agree with this - the odds the next flip will be heads are greater than the odds the next flip will be tails.
There are two possibilities here. FastLearner failed statistics in high school, or there's a troll in the field. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he has at least some semblance of logical reasoning capability and go with the latter option.
Don't feed the troll.
There are three possibilities here:
1. Rhiraven hasn't the attention-span to read a whole paragraph and so feels compelled to press the "reply" button before realising what point he's actually replying to.
2. Rhiraven has no understanding of simple logic - and believes that it's fine to include unvoiced assumptions into a logical argument (in this case the assumption that the coin is an unbiased one with one head and one tail - something never stated in the post to which I replied).
3. Don't feed the trolls.
|
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 22:12:00 -
[54]
Originally by: FastLearner
Edited by: FastLearner on 21/09/2007 21:12:52
Originally by: Tivern Maniva
I think it depends on how its done. Now yes im slightly biased. But i gained funding 1.8 billion out of 2 billion before any security had been mentioned. infact the last 200 million came from ebank via the security. It was only after then was it posted that security in the form of isk held via a 3rd party had been obtained as a "bonus" as such The bonus being that no investor stood to lose isk other than a freind of mine who offered the isk. So in such no security was actually required for me to find the isk. But considered as an afterthought to help ease any worry investors may have had.
Now im not saying all Ipo's should do this. But if the option is there i dont think it sould be shy'ed away from.
My comments were never aimed specifically at your IPO. But let's take a look at what's actually happening - then see if anyone can spot how it makes a mockery of the whole IPO system.
I'm looking here at JUST the 200 million EBank invested in your IPO.
Your friend (who could be your alt for I know - not an accusation, just a statement of fact) deposits 200 million in Ebank to secure that portion of your IPO. No doubt he's getting a below market-rate of interest on that. Ebank then invests that same 200 million ISK in your IPO, with the promise of above market returns. Does anyone see something a bit wierd in that?
If not, then here's an offer to anyone reading the forums.
Offer me 10% per month and I'll happily invest in you - provided you deposit the amount you want to invest with me first and I get to keep it if you don't deliver. And I'll pay you 8% interest per month on the funds I "hold" in escrow.
Do you still not see what's happening? What's actually HAPPENS if you take me up on my offer? I get 2% profit per month risk-free on whatever amount you name. In return you get to claim that you ran an IPO and proved yourself trustworthy/competent/whatever. But it's all an illusion.
Now I agree your situation is slightly different - as you'd recieved (or had promised) the bulk of your investment before you got into the "secured" game. But I'd argue that by securing your IPO you actually devalue whatever results you achieve (in terms of trustworthiness at least). And allowing someone securing your assets to then invest them in you is a strange decision - as it makes than portion of your IPO a total mockery: your friend invested that 200 million but with the profits going to someone else (less whatever interest he gets paid) in return for their endorsement.
EDIT: The first principle of any escrow agent is that they have no involvement in the actual deal.
To clarify a few matters. It wasnt 200 mill depsotied in Ebank as security. It was the Entire 2 billion isk. So 100% of what my ipo is worth has a clone sitting in the wallet of ebank doing god knows what they want to do with it untill my ipo close date.
Now Ebank do hold 200 million worth of shares in my ipo so yes they are out to profit on that percentage of the ipo. It had only come to this arrangement due to an investor backing out of the 200mill already offered. ( Ironically the invesotr is a director of ebank but thats neither here nor there considering at this point ebank wasnt even considered nor was the security. ) So while they do earn intrest on the 200 mill Invested in me They also offer the service of holding the entire 2 billion isk a fail safe incase i default on my ipo and run away with all the isk. to be payed out among investors. Now it wasnt needed and yes i couldve lived without it. But given the option to do it again should i run another ipo. Id instantly take them / it / whoever up on the offer.
I feel going the extra mile to secure investors isk. is a nice thankyou present for them for orignally entrusting me there isk without it.
|
Rhiraven
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 00:54:00 -
[55]
Originally by: FastLearner
Originally by: Rhiraven
I've been reading intently. I don't really have a vested interest in the conclusions drawn here since a scam with my IPO's business model would be ********, but I thought it was a good conversation...
Until...
Quote:
Can't agree with this - the odds the next flip will be heads are greater than the odds the next flip will be tails.
There are two possibilities here. FastLearner failed statistics in high school, or there's a troll in the field. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he has at least some semblance of logical reasoning capability and go with the latter option.
Don't feed the troll.
There are three possibilities here:
1. Rhiraven hasn't the attention-span to read a whole paragraph and so feels compelled to press the "reply" button before realising what point he's actually replying to.
2. Rhiraven has no understanding of simple logic - and believes that it's fine to include unvoiced assumptions into a logical argument (in this case the assumption that the coin is an unbiased one with one head and one tail - something never stated in the post to which I replied).
3. Don't feed the trolls.
It's simple logic that if you flip a coin 10 times, and it comes up heads 10 times, it's more likely to be tails the 11th time.
You heard it here first, folks. Next on the agenda, I will detail how invading Iraq will rid the world of terror.
|
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 01:42:00 -
[56]
Originally by: FastLearner
Edited by: FastLearner on 21/09/2007 20:15:47
Originally by: Shadarle
Remember, even if you flip a coin 100 times and it lands on heads every time it doesn't mean that the 101st flip is more or less likely to land on heads or tails. It's still 50/50.
Can't agree with this - the odds the next flip will be heads are greater than the odds the next flip will be tails. That's because after flipping a coin 100 times and all getting heads it's more likely the coin has 2 heads or is otherwise biased than that it's an unbiased coin with a very strange run of results.
I usually don't comment on things like this, but I feel that if I don't step in this is going to keep going.
A coin with two different sides has exactly the same probability of either side landing up, regardless of the number of times that coin is flipped.
Probability can not be affected by a factor of how many times the coin has been flipped. It is impossible. The coin will always retain the same probability (which is to say 50/50).
The idea that a coin is less random after a seeming "unrandom" series of results is the manifestation of "entropy fantasy". This same disconnect is what makes people believe in "luck" and the idea that they are capable of making a "random" choice.
As far as statistics is concerned, luck doesn't exist, and flipping a coin 100 times will not change that either. I'd rather not have to have this conversation again.
Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
Director for EBANK |
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 01:49:00 -
[57]
Eve online forums, one of the few internet hide outs that can turn an ipo discussion into one about statistics and coin's :P
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 01:51:00 -
[58]
Edited by: FastLearner on 22/09/2007 01:52:12
Originally by: Hexxx
Originally by: FastLearner
Edited by: FastLearner on 21/09/2007 20:15:47
Originally by: Shadarle
Remember, even if you flip a coin 100 times and it lands on heads every time it doesn't mean that the 101st flip is more or less likely to land on heads or tails. It's still 50/50.
Can't agree with this - the odds the next flip will be heads are greater than the odds the next flip will be tails. That's because after flipping a coin 100 times and all getting heads it's more likely the coin has 2 heads or is otherwise biased than that it's an unbiased coin with a very strange run of results.
I usually don't comment on things like this, but I feel that if I don't step in this is going to keep going.
A coin with two different sides has exactly the same probability of either side landing up, regardless of the number of times that coin is flipped.
Probability can not be affected by a factor of how many times the coin has been flipped. It is impossible. The coin will always retain the same probability (which is to say 50/50).
The idea that a coin is less random after a seeming "unrandom" series of results is the manifestation of "entropy fantasy". This same disconnect is what makes people believe in "luck" and the idea that they are capable of making a "random" choice.
As far as statistics is concerned, luck doesn't exist, and flipping a coin 100 times will not change that either. I'd rather not have to have this conversation again.
Wow, does noone actually read posts before quoting them?
Let me explain the point I was making as simply as I can:
If I see a coin tossed 100 times and land heads every time then it's going to cross my mind that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, it has heads on both sides. Without an inspection to be sure there's even a tail on the coin I'd bet next toss was heads as well.
Nowhere in the post I quoted did it say that the coin had two different sides - or that it wasn't biased (in wieghting) so as to favour landing on one side rather than the other.
Thanks for the lesson that when there's a 50/50 chance of something, both outcomes are as likely as the other. Had the original post I quoted SAID that the coin had 1 head and 1 tail, both with the same likelihood of landing then we wouldn't be having this diversion in the first place. I've seen coins with 2 heads and coins with 2 tails. Sorry that the rest of you disagree with me and believe that when an unknown coin comes up heads every time the 1/2^100 chance it's pure luck is more likely than then it's just a "bent" coin.
|
FastLearner
Fury Holdings
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 02:00:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Hexxx
Perhaps you were implying that the coin was "fixed" but there are much clearer ways of making that point.
How much clearer than "maybe it's got two heads" can you get?
|
Tivern Maniva
Trust Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 02:01:00 -
[60]
so in other words u want to point out that because we haven't had a scam in a while. you think theres a larger chance of one happening. see was that hard to say ?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |