Hacker News Reader

Comment by ars | Hacker News Reader

Why does his state of mind matter? I mean it matters for criminal matters, but why for civil?

Either he actually was willing to make good on his offer or he wasn't. His reasons are irrelevant.

"hope that they never get filled" is not a reason to make this a crime. If he actually refused to fill them, then sure. But hoping?

View on HN

I don't write the rules, I'm just telling you what they are. I guess it boils down to the idea that bluffing is banned in financial markets. What differentiates making a bluff from a regular raise in poker? You have to 'make good' on the bet either way, yes? The difference is that you're 'hoping' that you don't get called, 'hoping' that your opponent folds. Not allowed in markets. Probably a good thing too, or they'd be even more chaotic as they degenerate into bluff and double-bluff. Having said that spoofing is still widespread, likely because it is hard to prove and some regulators aren't as tough on it as they should be.

Saying that bluffing is not allowed is disingenuous. Why, then, are sellers allowed to break up big blocks of stocks into smaller orders to avoid triggering algorithms in the market? How is that not bluffing. "I have 1M shares to sell, but if I do that, I'm going to take a bath. But if I trickle them in, break them up, etc..." - what makes one strategy, and the other a bluff?

What you describe is called 'slow playing' in poker, not bluffing. Put it this way, if spoofing (bluffing) were legalized in markets, how do you think it would work out for the little guy? Who has the advantage in no-limit Texas hold em? The guy with the biggest chip stack bullies the pot.

One is hiding what you intend to do. The other is lying about the intention.

What makes one worthy of legal rules and the other not? Don't know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com