KIK:
I appreciate your thoughts. However, before I go any further, the rules for PSL3 are already set. We've had two contests to figure out what works the best.
Nevertheless, I will address your points.
"1) I'm strongly opposed to any sort of volume restrictions on picks for the next contest."
At this time there is no expectation of any restriction that has to do with volume. I'm not saying there shouldn't be, but there isn't. I'm also not saying there won't be, but there isn't. I expect to think a lot about it during PSL3.
"1a) I don't believe there should be any minimum starting price for stocks as long as they are profitable and fully-reporting.
That is a fair opinion to have. I'm certainly not saying it isn't. However, the odds of a freak stock going from 1 cent to 50 cents are not that unrealistic. As far as I'm concerned, that bastardizes the contest. We could have 80-100 people out there all with a ton of 1 cent stocks just hoping for freak of nature spike. It just isn't what we do in general on VMC. If the portfolio had 50 stocks instead of 6, then maybe it would be ok to allow a handful of stocks under a dime, but with only six, it just isn't going to happen. PSL 3 will require a 25 cent minimum. Personally, I would be happy if it were 40 cents, but we (SSK, Bob and myself) can agree on 25 cents. There are at least 1,000 VMC stocks that are 25 cents or more, so nobody needs to claim they are being restricted.
"2) I think pink sheet companies which are fully-reporting/up-to-date on SEC filings should be allowed. ARSD is an example. I'd like to hear an argument against...besides pink sheet paranoia, that is.
The rule has nothing to do with pink sheet paranoia. The rational is simple. VMC is predicated upon two rules - earnings and reporting. This is a VMC board and a VMC contest. It is designed to replicate VMC performance and trading as much as possible (on average). Some of us own pinkies to be sure. And, we could say something like one pink allowed and maybe we will on PSL4, but the reason against it for now is that pinks MAY have earnings and they MAY report. However, what is the definition of "reporting"? No pinks report exactly alike. ALL BB's do or they get delisted. It is tough enough to invest in stocks that are so weakly covered as BB's. Pinkies are a total crapshoot because they have zero accountability to the SEC. What you consider "reporting" is very possibly not what someone else considers "reporting". Thus, with no objective standard (as is the case with BB's), they fail, or nearly fail, the basic fundamental premise that VMC was created upon. I'm not saying this is a permanent position, but it is for now.
"3) I know this is a long-shot, but I think the trade and freeze rules should be junked. They're gimmicky, arbitrary, and, most importantly, they've destroyed any comparability between PSL1 and PSL2 results. Perhaps a shadow contest say, PSL3a and PSL3b, with (a) allowing trade/freeze and (b) with original PSL1 rules -- but with the same 6 starting picks for each --could be arranged."
For starters, I totally disagree with the characterization that they are gimmicky and arbitrary. I can't even begin to see what makes them "gimmicky". As to being "arbitrary", the only thing arbitrary about them is that each person can arbitrarily decide what they want to do with them.
I've said this before, but the purpose of the PSL contests is to help (over time) determine who are the best stock PICKERS as well as who are the best stock TRADERS. Since you and I and everyone else does both "picking" and "trading" every single day, then any contest that did not include both aspects of it would not reasonably represent our real world investments.
I disagree that they have destroyed any "comparability" between PSL1 and PSL2. I pointed out in an earlier post that the gain from the trades and freezes that were made was a mere 9% and lots of people never used any freezes or trades, much less both. Besides, even if I agreed with you, PSL3 would "destroy any comparability" between EITHER PSL1 OR PSL2. It is going to coincide with one or the other. Trades and freezes are permanent as far as I can see. If somebody makes some bad picks, they can correct it just like in real life. That keeps interest in the contest. After 10 PSL's, I don't think any miniscule issues about some minor differences between any of the specific PSL contests will be relevant.
I imagine that SSK could relatively easily maintain an "original" portfolio. Certainly that would be a ton less work than the one with trades and freezes. However, even if a ton less work, it is "more" work in total. So, he can speak for himself on that. I think it is a nice suggestion and it would be nice to know who would have won with no trades or freezes. They probably deserve special mention.
"4) Finally, and I really want to get a discussion going on this one, let's have all entrants put up $5 each and play it winner-take-all."
Maybe the day will come when that is feasible, but it sure ain't today! Collecting the money in a time frame available would not only be almost impossible, but a nightmare to do. Besides all that, if the same thing that happened to DIGI at 3:59:50 which screwed him out of first place were to happen with money on the line, there would be hell to pay. I just don't feel like paying it and I'm sure SSK doesn't either. In the long range plan for PSL, it could, conceivably be an option. But, before money gets involved we are going to make sure every conceivable issue has been dealt with and every conceivable loophole accounted for.
Len
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
