@Riccardino999 My opinion is let’s see what happens after the 6103 efficacy data in H1 27. Safety & PK already match the pre clinical which is very encouraging. Now what if human efficacy gets anywhere close to the mouse data?
Clue: the specialists will be queuing up 😉 #AVCT
@Riccardino999 Retail “expert oncologists” don’t get an opinion, but we’re meant to treat yours as the grown up take ? 🤣
You do realise you’re in the same game as the people you mock? You just think your retail take counts & theirs doesn’t. #AVCT
@Keep_t100@narindertweets@edsheeran Adding the claim that ‘racism’ is why the West backs Israel just piles on the antisemitic framing. Eds audience is full of kids and families. Maybe he simply doesn’t want political preaching about Palestine pushed on them at his concerts.
@narindertweets@MagentaPurple2 Ed Sheeran fans by the most part are young kids. We don't want them listening to some fool going on about Palestine and insulting Israelis. It’s a pop concert not a hate march for gods sake.
@narindertweets@Keep_t100@edsheeran Calling support for Ukraine ‘because they’re white’ and lack of support for Palestinians ‘because they’re brown’ is the actual racist take. You’re the one reducing people to skin colour not @edsheeran
@KayBurley Unfortunately for Labour they didn’t get the legislation through quick enough. The law as it stands means Reforms donations are legal. These are the facts.
🚨Puretech Health $PRTC trading at £1.20 (£293m market cap) is a joke. Even a forced fire sale of the all assets puts the shares at nearly double today’s price. You won’t find a more mispriced stock in the UK markets 👇🏽
🚨Puretech Health $PRTC trading at £1.20 (£293m market cap) is a joke. Even a forced fire sale of the all assets puts the shares at nearly double today’s price. You won’t find a more mispriced stock in the UK markets 👇🏽
Two horses. One has a 20% chance of winning, the other 80%. A bookie knows the real odds. The crowd doesn't. $10,000 lands on one horse, $50,000 on the other.
Inside an MIT classroom, a professor asks one question: how does the bookie guarantee he never loses?
He ignores what he knows. Sets the odds not by probability but by how the money fell. Five to one, matching the market.
First horse wins, he pays $60,000 and collected $60,000. Second horse wins, same thing. Zero exposure. Fee on top. Riskless profit.
That's not gambling. That's pricing.
The same math prices every option contract on Wall Street. Black-Scholes, replicating portfolios, hedging. It starts with one insight: you don't need to predict the future. You structure the trade so the future doesn't matter.
The professor builds it step by step. Take any derivative. Find a combination of stock and cash that replicates the pay-off exactly. Hold both sides. Risk cancels. You keep the spread.
He pulls up Bloomberg with IBM call options and shows it in real numbers. Prices a digital option using nothing but two calls at different strikes. No model needed. Just replication.
Traders do this thousands of times a day. Enter a contract, hedge it on the exchange, walk away with a fee. No opinion on direction. Just structure.
The entire derivatives market works this way. Not prediction. Replication.
The people who understood that distinction first built the biggest fortunes in finance.
@nanalyzetweets The way you’re carrying on in this entire thread is pure cringe.
Mate, put the bottle down and go to bed. You’re properly embarrassing yourself 🙈
An MIT professor offered his class a coin flip: win $125 or lose $100. Most students said no. Then he proved refusing was the smart move, and it explains why you're bad with money.
The bet is a steal on paper. Flip a coin, win $125 or lose $100. Do the math and you come out $12.50 ahead on average. It's what economists call a more than fair bet. Most of the room still turned it down.
They weren't being dumb. They were being human.
Here's the idea underneath it. You don't actually care about dollars, you care about how much each dollar changes your life. And the dollars you already have are worth more to you than the ones you might win. So losing $100 stings harder than winning $125 feels good.
Then he pushed it further. He told the class he'd force them into that winning bet unless they paid to walk away. How much would they pay? The answer, with their standard math, was $43. People will hand over almost half their money to dodge a bet that's tilted in their favor.
That's not weakness. That's a law of how the mind values risk, and it has a name: risk aversion.
And it's the whole reason insurance exists. Being uninsured is just this coin flip in disguise. You quietly pay to never be the person who gets wiped out, even when the math says the odds are on your side.
Once you see it, you notice it everywhere. Every warranty, every premium, every bet you've refused. You weren't being irrational. You were pricing the fear.
The market is wrong about $UBER.
I have just published a 5,000-word thesis explaining why autonomy is not a threat to $UBER and why it's an amazingly attractive opportunity here.
You can read it below; it's free 👇
https://t.co/BHbFALDba9