Greggers, your previous post in this thread was agreeing with a "great point" that El Diablo made, now you are hating on him immensely?

And if buying Zynga at $3 is the worst way you can imagine spending $, are you balls deep short Zynga? Certainly if I saw someone spending $ in the worst way imaginable and I was able to take the other side wouldn't that make it the best way to spend $ imaginable?

PS I have no opinion on Zynga, but am interested to see how they do if they actually launch real money poker games in Europe by early next year like they say they will.

I bothered to read the rest of the thread.

I don't need to short Zynga to invest my money in better ways than going long on Zynga lol.

Greggers,

I didn't dismiss his post. I dismissed the one silly statement in his post.

What is your rationale for this? How big is your position? If a moderator thinks it makes more sense, please feel free to move this post to the Zynga thread (which I believe exists somewhere in this sub-forum).

Thank you.

G,

Basic financial analysis evaluation (read any analyst report who is very slightly bullish for the same stuff as what I'd say) + belief in continued value of their best-in-class analytics systems (many companies like kontagent would prob laugh at that) + upside from real-money gambling opportunities. The big risk is that they simply can't make good enough games as the market matures, and it's a real big one. But I think their ability to optimally capitalize on real money gambling opportunities overshadows that risk at current pricing levels.

Thank you.

So it is basically the real money gambling opportunities you are betting on. I thought this was a very good read counter to your thinking (does not address all the obvious basic issues with Zynga that are transparent to everyone: no competitive barrier to entry, poor management etc etc, just focuses on Zynga's real money gambling upside):

http://seekingalpha.com/article/7894...k-at-the-facts

Also, my broad point (as some other poster seemed confused by this concept) is that if I were going to take a large position in something, Zynga would hardly be the stock(s) I choose - I feel there are much better opportunities across many different markets. I suppose you must see a lot of upside in Zynga though to commit to what I assume is a large position. Again, I definitely agree much more with NajdorfDefense that the company is basically worth $0 unless it were to be acquired. I guess we will all see.

Well wouldn't you know it, the first lockup period ends tomorrow, and S&P comes out the day before and upgrades FB from hold to buy. And they do it in the last half hour of trading too ... something smells ...

Scammers gonna scam ...

But the stock didn't move up a tick

Good thing I didn't, no need to put words in my mouth Masked Man. I guess you were just trolling.

Cuban and Zuck were both lucky. It's not even a question, in fact, I think you said that earlier.

ElD, Were you drinking heavily when you almost read it correctly?

'And as good as they were, they were still even luckier.

As was Cuban, not saying it's unique to them. '

pretty much same as "There's always luck involved in successes like this"


I hope you're not going to fall prey to Internet Debate Mode and pretend you didn't completely misinterpret it... can't imagine you actually wanted me to list all entrepreneurs who got lucky and had a massive IPO, if so, LOL. Still thinking you're just trolling the thread to see if anyone else was paying attention.

FB could do anything in the short-term, nevertheless, I bought puts Monday, they went up 150% today. Could easily drop 90% tomorrow.

ND,

My point still holds. Cuban built and flipped a business that was likely not a viable going concern for billions to yahoo near the peak of the dotcom bubble. Zuck has built a profitable business with billions in revenue. Yes, both have profited from luck and good timing, but comparing these two situations seems silly to me.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...selling-shares

Sell Mortimer....sell! Get back in there and sell!

+1 on Cuban Luck. I don't see why Zuck was lucky - he built a real business.

Why would he not convert the Bs to As? As I understand it, the extra voting power is worthless because Zuck has control locked up.

Because there were quite a few similar social sites doing similar things at that time. Zuck had the right formula at the right time, but it wasn't guaranteed success from his ideas.

Max,

That's exactly the point, though. While lots of things needed to fall into place at the right time (luck) for fb to become so dominant, they also simply made better decisions and executed better than MySpace, Friendster, tribe, and a host of other potential winners in the space.