Cramer- "The Odds Still Aren't in Favor of Shorting&quo
Enviado: 15/10/2003 15:03Agora deu para jogar "blacjack"! 
Ulisses
"The Odds Still Aren't in Favor of Shorting"
By James J. Cramer
10/15/2003 09:45 AM EDT
"When playing blackjack recently at Mandalay Bay, I was following the cards extremely closely. I thought we'd exhausted most of the fours and fives in the decks. You can never be too sure, but that's what it seemed like.
I drew two nines. The dealer had a six showing. I split and put a lot of money out. I got two face cards -- predictable with lots of low cards used up. Two nineteens. The dealer flipped over his down card -- voila, another face card. I was itching to collect my doubled winnings when he pulled a five.
That shouldn't be, I said to myself. It shouldn't have happened. But it did. In fact, that sequence of events happens quite rarely, but it can happen.
I digress to cards because some of you were asking about the alleged inconsistency between my call about the Oscillator being plus-6 and the possibility of the upside blowoff happening.
I went back over both pieces and they are answered by the riddle of the cards. Nothing favored the dealer pulling that five -- nothing. But he did. Nothing favors the 1,000-point upside blowoff.
The Oscillator is an odds calculator. It may be wrong. It makes little sense that the market will have a 1,000-point rally. While the fundamentals are good, they don't dictate it. Lots of the reasons why things might work out have to do with artificially low rates that can't stay that way.
But sometimes the odds are wrong. The possibility that this time the oscillator is just overridden by events -- the dealer pulling that five -- can't be ignored.
All that said, remember, I still split the nines. I don't think the blowoff could happen. My job, though, is to predict the odds, and just as I couldn't go to the pit boss and scream "foul" when my perfect split was crushed into smithereens, those who are shorting and are underinvested in this market will similarly be unable to cry foul.
Instead, what will happen is that the investors will take the money away, just as the casino did when the dealer showed 21. "
(in www.realmoney.com)
Ulisses
"The Odds Still Aren't in Favor of Shorting"
By James J. Cramer
10/15/2003 09:45 AM EDT
"When playing blackjack recently at Mandalay Bay, I was following the cards extremely closely. I thought we'd exhausted most of the fours and fives in the decks. You can never be too sure, but that's what it seemed like.
I drew two nines. The dealer had a six showing. I split and put a lot of money out. I got two face cards -- predictable with lots of low cards used up. Two nineteens. The dealer flipped over his down card -- voila, another face card. I was itching to collect my doubled winnings when he pulled a five.
That shouldn't be, I said to myself. It shouldn't have happened. But it did. In fact, that sequence of events happens quite rarely, but it can happen.
I digress to cards because some of you were asking about the alleged inconsistency between my call about the Oscillator being plus-6 and the possibility of the upside blowoff happening.
I went back over both pieces and they are answered by the riddle of the cards. Nothing favored the dealer pulling that five -- nothing. But he did. Nothing favors the 1,000-point upside blowoff.
The Oscillator is an odds calculator. It may be wrong. It makes little sense that the market will have a 1,000-point rally. While the fundamentals are good, they don't dictate it. Lots of the reasons why things might work out have to do with artificially low rates that can't stay that way.
But sometimes the odds are wrong. The possibility that this time the oscillator is just overridden by events -- the dealer pulling that five -- can't be ignored.
All that said, remember, I still split the nines. I don't think the blowoff could happen. My job, though, is to predict the odds, and just as I couldn't go to the pit boss and scream "foul" when my perfect split was crushed into smithereens, those who are shorting and are underinvested in this market will similarly be unable to cry foul.
Instead, what will happen is that the investors will take the money away, just as the casino did when the dealer showed 21. "
(in www.realmoney.com)