RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:LongtheshortsIt’s true this has nothing to do with NSP as I too did state. It’s true also I did get in the middle but it was only because I could see bagcheese’s statement was being taken out of context in an attempt to make it look like he believe an investment could lose more than 100% and that although bag cheeses use of the word ‘percentile’ was obscure, the math he used to accompany it’s use fully explained his use of the word and his math was in fact all correct in general and/or how it was used to illustrate the point being made.
Bag cheese’s math was correct in all the ways displayed and this entire debate about ‘percentile’ is for not because whether or not ‘percentile’ was used appropriately or not is ridiculous as the math bag cheese displayed was clear to see bagcheese’s the context he was using ‘percentile’ in.
Bag cheese could’ve used ‘thousandth of a percentile, but who really cares, the math was displayed in multiple ways as to what bag cheese meant and most would be able to grasp the term ‘percentile’ as a fraction of percent. In short it wasn’t hard to see what bag cheese was saying, yet there was a huge debate about losing more than 100%. Bag cheese said early on that you can’t lose more than 100% and that then should’ve ended the debate.
“Thousands of percentile” is actually correct in a strange way as a percentile is typically 1 or more percent out of a 100 statistically. Therefore, to be down “thousands of percentile” means you need to divide an individual percent (1/100) further done to express the precent loss. Bagcheese wasn’t wrong, its simply that percentile is typically used in expressions out of 100 and when there is a loss for example that exceeds the capability for it to be expressed out of 100 as the loss was for example, I think bag cheese gave as a drop from $1000 to $.01. Really it has to be accurately expressed beyond 99% loss as there would be as bagcheese said a loss to the fourth digit right of the decimal.Which is also correct and Divot did admit there is more of a loss percentage wise from i think it was an expression of 100 to .01 vs 1000 to .01.
And lets all face it, this debate wouldn’t have even happened if one person wasn’t bull NSP and the other bear NSP. I side with bagcheeses on his math, it was all correct as well as his point regardless of if a term he used was obscure and not commonly used in the fashion he used it, his accompanying math made any obscurity clear. After reading the debate again Bagecheese was the only one trying to make divot understand with math and explanation, divots posts had no counter math, no attempt at understanding bag cheeses math although bag cheese displayed it in multiple ways even after bag cheese clarified early on his point was never to assert more than a 1000% loss. The frustrating part for me was divot not admitting bag cheeses math was correct until the end and the insults from both sides. I side with divot on the point that although it would seem divot is bear NSP, divot should be able to post. A lot of bag cheeses posts had a question of why he was posting without share ownership in NSP, which was frustrating to read.
My conclusion is that although bag cheeses use of the word percentile was obscure and not common, bag cheeses multiple displays of math and clarification were very clear and normally would’ve put to rest any misunderstanding. Instead, this resulted in a referendum on bag cheeses use of ‘percentile’. Bag cheeses math and clarification displayed clearly why he used the word ‘percentile’ and although there is no and has not been any explanation or link that this is a correct usage of the word, there is no display that bag cheeses use of ‘percentile’ was incorrect. In fact, if you were to use statistic distribution in the obscure why bag cheese did, ‘percentile’ would be the only word I could think of to use.
I actually think the only thing bagcheese did wrong was instead of stating “thousands of percentile”, he should have said ‘calculated to a thousands of percentiles loss’ = percentiles with an ‘s’. Either way, after bag cheeses math and clarification the debate should’ve been over as bag cheese stated there is no way to lose more than 100%, yet he was continually accused of this in essentially every reply. But it wasn’t over and that’s because there was an NSP bull vs and NSP bear.
I was going to jump in earlier but I was intrigued to how it would end up, but I have to give the strong edge to bag cheese, regardless of if his language was obscure, he gets the edge based on his math, early clarification and making more sense from early on and through the debate. Divot jumped back and forth on the math being wrong/right/wrong again.. and bag cheese did say you can't lose 100% and his math displayed this and Divot also said that he displayed math, but there was no counter math displayed by divot that showed bag cheeses math wrong. That is where divot lost my vote early on. Regardless of what end of the debate somoene ends up on with 'percentile', the math cleared up the terminology very early on but the debate went on.
And becasue there was an asserted comparison to multiple of Divots investments, there is the ability to use statistics in there is a distrbution across multiple of Divots investments whereby he suffers declines that must be calculated to the thousandths of a percentile. That is factually correct as a statement. I don't know what divot invests in or his losses but there can be a null hypothesis and statistics generated and used based on multipe of divots investments.. so technically statistics can be used and involved and therefor the argument of 'percentile' is releant on this level as well. Therefore the entire argument of it being inccorect as percentile is used in statistics and cant be attributed to bag cheeses usage is actually incorrect as well.
And no, to the member that said Im in the middle, Im not more in the middle of this than he/she is, Im observing this. I doubt it's over