what could go wrong?, page-116

Fair enough, I'm not saying my assumptions are 100% right by any means.

"My 80% figure is of course pure assumption, as is your 50% assumption. My confidence is for the reasons as follows (all my opinion only)."

If I thought the trial had an 80% chance of success with a range of .80-$1.50, then I'd certainly be holding a significant position- It would be a great bet.

I can understand your .80-$1.50 opening range, However I'm wondering if you could try help me better understand where your 80% assumption comes from? I'm also curious on what yours( or anyone else's) opening range would be if the trial doesn't meet it's target end point of >8 weeks, and is also not statistically significant <6 weeks

My 50% "assumption" was based on the fact that patients in the Phase 3 study are staying on treatment for longer than anticipated, however also taking into account the fact that 60%+ of Phase 3 oncology studies fail, and that it's been suggested up to 50% of these studies that do not show a statistically significant benefit, might actually be false-negative trials- with the main contributing factor being under powered studies that did not enrol enough patients. What concerns me here is that the average Oncology Phase 3 study is usually 600+ plus in terms of patient size, so it seems running a 415 patient study certainly isn't going to help your odds of success. The more I read about Phase 3 Oncology studies, the more I realize just how speculative they are, and just how important trial design is- Trial design is absolutely critical in the success of the study, especially when you're powered to only detect small differences. Knowing that ACL is a Aus biotech who struggles for funding, with no real clinical trial expertise( compared to the likes of big$ pharma who has a history of running these studies), makes me even more anxious over how they've approached trial design- especially after seeing so many Aus biotechs stuff up Phase 3's just because of design, and also after the Failed IPO and lack of interest by US investors- with some even raising questions over the design itself.

So I really can't comprehend how you could assume the study has an 80% probability of success, I just can't see how it's realistic to assume the odds are much greater than a coin flip.

Your post seemed to of attracted many likes, therefore others obviously agree with your assumptions. So perhaps I'm just missing something here? Have you been speaking with the company?