← back to the screen

SBET

Sharplink Inc

Hotels, Restaurants & Leisur · NASDAQ NMS - GLOBAL MARKET · $1.8B market value · ranked 3 of 25 on today’s screen

This page explains a rule, not a recommendation. Every number below was produced mechanically from public data. Nothing here is a judgement about the company, nobody has read its filings, and no position described on this page is real — the portfolios are simulations. It is published so that the reasoning can be checked and disagreed with, which is the only thing that makes an automated system worth trusting.

The company, from the data

Market value
$1.8B
Revenue, trailing 12 months
$50M
Price
$7.57
Enterprise value / revenue
34.3×
Gross margin
97.0%
Operating margin
-3,401.6%
Debt to equity
0.00
Cash per share
$0.26
Average daily volume
7.7M shares
Shares outstanding
210M
Annual volatility
75%
Below its 52-week high
-53.3%

Assembled from the data feed — an industry label, a set of filed figures and a price history. It is not a description of what the business does, because nothing in this system reads about the business.

Why it scores 84.0

Growth9940% of the score

revenue up +1,496.7% over the last twelve months, +56.7% a year over three years and the latest quarter running +50.0 points against that trend. Ranked against its own industry group (Consumer), not against the whole market, so a sector where everyone grows fast earns nobody a high mark.

Momentum8140% of the score

up +42.5% over 13 weeks, +22.1% over 26 and measured against a volatility of 75%. A big move in a jumpy stock counts for less than the same move in a steady one.

Quality5820% of the score

debt to equity 0.00, operating margin moving from -2,616.0% to -3,401.6% and cash of $0.26 a share. Whether the share count has been growing also counts, and leverage is judged against its own industry.

Each mark is a percentile against the other eligible companies measured today — 80 means it beat four out of five of them on that part, not that it scored 80 out of 100. The set it is ranked against changes daily, so a mark can move without the company changing at all.

What size the rules give it, and why

Books A, C, D4.00%equal weight

one twenty-fifth of the book, the same as every other holding. The company’s identity never enters.

Books B, E5.48%conviction weight

from its rank alone — 3 of 25 — on a straight ramp from 1.5× equal weight at the top to 0.6× at the bottom. The weights are then pushed back inside those bounds and the difference redistributed until they both fit the bounds AND add to 100%, which is why the figure above will not usually equal the ramp value on its own. The size of its score lead is deliberately ignored: the ranking is what a score of this kind can honestly assert; the gaps between scores are not.

Simulated holding right now: A 3.24% · B 4.30% · C 3.27% · D 2.97% · E 4.20% · F 3.26%.

Where its stop sits, and why

Its own volatility74.9%step 1

measured from this company’s own price history

One week of it10.4%step 2

the annual figure divided by the square root of 52

Multiplied by 331.2%step 3

far enough out that ordinary weekly noise does not trigger it

Held within 10%–40%31.2%the stop

inside the bounds, so it stands unchanged

Books C and E sell it if it trades 31.2% below its highest point since purchase — from today’s $7.57 that would be $5.21. The mark it falls from is the day’s high and the test is against the day’s low, so a break through the level during the day sells the holding even if it recovers by the close. The level rises with the price and never falls, though the distance itself moves with the name’s volatility. Books A, B and D hold it through anything, on purpose: they are the control that shows whether stopping out helped or simply sold the dips. A simulated stop is optimistic — real ones gap through in stocks this thin, which is why an extra 75 basis points is charged on every stop exit and books C and E should still be read as a best case.

How it fits the whole

It is one of twenty-five, and it is meant to be. No single holding is supposed to carry the result, and the system has no view about this company that survives its leaving the screen — when it drops out, it is sold, whatever anyone thinks of it. The purpose of the whole exercise is narrow: to find out, on forward evidence rather than backtest, whether ranking small companies this way beats simply owning the small-cap growth index after the cost of all that trading. That question is still open, and the trading cost is the part most likely to settle it. Nothing here is a recommendation and no money is invested.