Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Just how many 'experimental' friends of portefeuille are there?

Recs

13

May 28, 2009 – Comments (16)

I'm beginning to think that the vast majority of the 60,000+ CAPS members are merely experimental friends of portefeuille! Something must be done to limit the number of players that one person can create!!!

16 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 28, 2009 at 12:08 PM, DaretothREdux (39.57) wrote:

I actually wish you could delete an account that is no longer in use...wonder what that would do to the 60,000 number...

Report this comment
#2) On May 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM, SuperPicks (28.91) wrote:

Yeah but those who really want to cheat the system will still do it, where there's a will, there's a way & then those who cheat the system then will command the greatest of deceptions while the other 98% of the population couldn't command the technical knowledge to hack like the cheater. 

Its just like gun control.  if you ban guns.  the gang members will still get them because many of those firearms are obtained illegally anyways! meanwhile the rest of the law-abiding population cant get one.

IP addresses can be spoofed, alternate computers can be used, multiple emails can be used.  Do you have a solution to propose?

Just posted this on one of the friends' nonefficient as i was noticing many of the 'friend' blog posts being removed:

"very interesting how all your experimental friends' blog posts are being taken down.

CAPs apparently wants to limit evidence of multiple accounts or deliberate spam messages carrying the same message from more than 1 account. 

Interesting."

 

Report this comment
#3) On May 28, 2009 at 12:21 PM, JGus (28.67) wrote:

SuperPicks

Perhaps the only legitimate solution would be to remove the accounts of those who have actually admitted to having more than 1 account. Portefeuille is not the only one to admit to having multiple accounts...although I think he takes the cake for having the most (at least for those who have confessed to more than 1).

 

Report this comment
#4) On May 28, 2009 at 12:21 PM, JGus (28.67) wrote:

SuperPicks

Perhaps the only legitimate solution would be to remove the accounts of those who have actually admitted to having more than 1 account. Portefeuille is not the only one to admit to having multiple accounts...although I think he takes the cake for having the most (at least for those who have confessed to more than 1).

 

Report this comment
#5) On May 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM, russiangambit (29.15) wrote:

I see no problem with multiple accounts. I wanted to set up multiple accounts to test different strategies. But in the end I decided it is too much effort to keep login in and out. Yes, I am that lazy.

I do wish there was a way to delete ianctive accounts, though.

Report this comment
#6) On May 28, 2009 at 12:48 PM, JGus (28.67) wrote:

russiangambit

But don't you think there should at least be a limit?

Report this comment
#7) On May 28, 2009 at 12:48 PM, outoffocus (22.74) wrote:

SuperPicks

Actually the blogs weren't removed (to my dismay).  If you click the "view all blogs" link they are still there.  But the should be removed.  He shouldnt be allowed to just spam the CAPS blogs like that.  There should be like a 3 consecutive blog post limit on CAPS. It shouldnt be necessary but it seems there will always be people who push the limits of the rules of CAPS.

Report this comment
#8) On May 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM, russiangambit (29.15) wrote:

> But don't you think there should at least be a limit?

Limit? Not if they are unique. But if any of them are inactive for more than 6 months, they should be deleted. The same, if there is more than 50% overlap in picks. If portfeuille can mantain 10 different high ranking accounts, all with unique picks, good for him. It is like managing 10 funds at the same time.

Report this comment
#9) On May 28, 2009 at 2:37 PM, TMFBabo (100.00) wrote:

I see no problem with multiple accounts. I wanted to set up multiple accounts to test different strategies. But in the end I decided it is too much effort to keep login in and out. Yes, I am that lazy.

I do wish there was a way to delete inactive accounts, though.

I agree with everything here 100%, even the part about wanting more accounts and being too lazy to manage the extras.

Report this comment
#10) On May 28, 2009 at 4:44 PM, blake303 (29.19) wrote:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=178307

Report this comment
#11) On May 28, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Seano67 (61.98) wrote:

What's the problem with having multiple accounts? Why do you care, and why are you personalizing it by naming portefeuille in the title of your blog? I keep two accounts, simply because it's a good way for me to track stocks, and I know a lot of other people keep multiple accounts too.

Report this comment
#12) On May 28, 2009 at 5:15 PM, portefeuille (99.67) wrote:

I have created 12 players (see here. I did not mention the player 20minutedelay in that post because it had only made 9 picks at the time).

So it is portefeuille and 11 "experimental friends" ...

Report this comment
#13) On May 28, 2009 at 5:24 PM, portefeuille (99.67) wrote:

also see this:

-----------------------

#1) On May 09, 2009 at 7:59 AM, portefeuille (99.98) wrote:

I think there is some value in making a "huge" number of calls (and to do that in the "caps" game and not grow too old in the meantime you "need" more than one player or an "off-balance-sheet" list or something like that) ...

I think it is fun being the analyst and that is actually what a "caps" game player is supposed to feel like (so they say) ...

If there was no 200 picks at a time limit (I know, that they need a limit (not just to the benefit of their IT infrastructure but because of the current scoring/ranking system) I could easily do without all my other players and "my main player portefeuille plus my list" will do even if the limit is upheld.

Actually I do not see how having multiple players hurts anyone or anything and does make sense as long as these players do not have too much "overlap" and as long as they are not entertained simply to enhance your "winning chances" (they do crowd out places "at the top" of the ranking system if successful, so maybe there should be a way to register them as "secondary" players that are not part of the player ranking system (just like "passive" players are after a while)).

    

#2) On May 09, 2009 at 8:01 AM, portefeuille (99.98) wrote:

    (crowd out other players, not places)

-----------------------

(from here)

 

Report this comment
#14) On May 28, 2009 at 5:34 PM, portefeuille (99.67) wrote:

Actually the blogs weren't removed (to my dismay).  If you click the "view all blogs" link they are still there.  But the should be removed.  He shouldnt be allowed to just spam the CAPS blogs like that.  There should be like a 3 consecutive blog post limit on CAPS. It shouldnt be necessary but it seems there will always be people who push the limits of the rules of CAPS.

I posted 10 and 7 were deleted within a few minutes (not at my request).

They were not meant to be spam. They were meant to reach those interested in those players, not today, but when they would happen to look at that players blog. 

Report this comment
#15) On May 28, 2009 at 5:35 PM, portefeuille (99.67) wrote:

that players blog

that player's blog

Report this comment
#16) On May 28, 2009 at 7:06 PM, SuperPicks (28.91) wrote:

yeah i know what you mean portef.  I found it interesting so many of those blogs were removed.

I have multiple accounts.  But questions before in the past regarding multiple accounts gave the impression that CAPs wanted to steer attention away from the fact that some players command multiple accounts therefore misrepresenting the membership/player total statistics.  

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement