Plain Vanilla Options Trades.

[SOCRATES]

Something that has been im[portant in all of these trades is Socrates extensive use of limit orders. Typical spread in this particular series is 3 points.

On that particular closing tade, market was 75-76 with his 3 lot on the bid, 131 lots offered

Everyone else was 73.5 bid behind him.

No, not limit orders, but carefully anticipated expectancy.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Trade of 3 @ 75 still showing on Euronext ~ Liffe screen, go and look.

You have access to the price and size of all ticks (not just trades and not just 15 second snapshots and that, I believe, Reuters only goes down to 1 second granularity while Bloomberg shows everything) that go through yes?

Your closing 3 lot went thru at 15:06:46
the quotes at that time were . . .

15:06:47 . . . 73.5-76.0 . . . size = 102x131
15:06:46 . . . 73.5-76.0 . . . size = 62x131
15:06:46 . . . 75 . . . trade size = 3
15:06:43 . . . 75.0-76.5 . . . size = 3 x131
15:06:41 . . . 75.0-76.5 . . . size = 3 x121

with your 3 lot being the bid for a few seconds with the rest of the market
adjusting their prices downwards as the future fell way viz . . .

15:06:34 75.0-76.5 . . . size = 3 x 62
15:06:33 75.0-77.0 . . . size = 3 x 119
15:06:32 75.0-77.0 . . . size = 53 x 110
. . .
15:06:32 75.0-77.0 . . . size = 93 x 110

etc etc

IB's FTSE Index traders are, these days, pretty much automated, with the systems marking their
prices to the future all on a stright through processing basis (including immediate hedges to the future that, at their simplest, are done on a delta neutral basis)

One way to look at that trade (which is in no way to denigrate the fact that a profit was made) is that you bought at a "high" price relative to where the market was at that time ie the markt was only prepared to buy at 73.5

 

[A Dashing Blade]

No, not limit orders, but carefully anticipated expectancy.

Confused, from the fact that the integer componant of the bid size was "3" from 15:05:53 onwards, that looks to me like you joined the bid. Presumably using something akin to what used to be called the "Public Limit Board" in the good old days?

(Serious question Socrates, genuine interest)

 

[SOCRATES]

You have access to the price and size of all ticks (not just trades and not just 15 second snapshots) that go through yes?

Your closing 3 lot went thru at 15:06:46
the quotes at that time were . . .

15:06:47 . . . 73.5-76.0 . . . size = 102x131
15:06:46 . . . 73.5-76.0 . . . size = 62x131
15:06:46 . . . 75 . . . trade size = 3
15:06:43 . . . 75.0-76.5 . . . size = 3 x131
15:06:41 . . . 75.0-76.5 . . . size = x121

with your 3 lot being the bid for a few seconds with the rest of the market
adjusting their prices downwards as the future fell way viz . . .

15:06:34 75.0-76.5 . . . size = 3 x 62
15:06:33 75.0-77.0 . . . size = 3 x 119
15:06:32 75.0-77.0 . . . size = 53 x 110
. . .
15:06:32 75.0-77.0 . . . size = 93 x 110

etc etc

IB's FTSE Index traders are, these days, pretty much automated, with the systems marking their
prices to the future all on a stright through processing basis (including immediate hedges to the future that, at their simplest, are done on a delta neutral basis)

One way to look at that trade (which is in no way to denigrate the fact that a profit was made) is that you bought at a "high" price relative to where the market was at that time ie the markt was only prepared to buy at 73.5

I don't care. I decided about the price about one hour in advance of the event. That is what I mean by anticipated expectancy. When it pops up, I grab it.

 

[SOCRATES]

Confused, from the fact that the integer componant of the bid size was "3" from 15:05:53 onwards, that looks to me like you joined the bid. Presumably using something akin to what used to be called the "Public Limit Board" in the good old days?

(Serious question Socrates, genuine interest)

You mean the old "Public Limit Order Board", don't you ?

Sort of....since anticipated expectancy is in the dealing skills cluster of abilities, whereas all else emanates form the trading abilities cluster. Very different faculties but they become seamless with time and experience. They are not mechanical and can never be mechanised.

 

[stoic]

W

just like the gamble and the house, even though the odds are fair the house has the advantage . .

 

[charliechan]

I know professionals whom I wouldn't trust with a long call.

I was visited one day by our financial controller. He wanted to know why I was trading short options. Actually, they were one leg of vertical spreads but he didn't see the distinction. He was a professional but knew jack. I also had "amateur" clients who knew more than the brokers.

Smart money will attract money until it goes pear-shaped, eg hedge funds.

Grant.

very true. i understand where socrates is coming from, but i dont agree that every employee is a mug, or some tool for 'the' conspiracy either...

 

[Mr. Charts]

Thank you, and I am very gratified to tell you the other lot ( u no hoo), and their cousins as well, have separately also been given a good thrashing too.. ...you will be pleased to hear....:cheesy:

Excellent - glad you gave them a good hiding ;-)))
Feast well on the fodder and prosper ;-)
Richard

 

[stoic]

I am not interested in teaching any of you anything.

I am not interested in discussing greeks, or volatility, or fundamentals, or margin, or brokerage, or the underlying, or intrinsic value, or decay, or any other stuff.

I am not interested in discussing any of that. I am not.

I am not interested in teaching any of you, because obviously all this prodding is not intended as discussion pure and simple; it is intended to extract information, by whatever means, fair means or foul means.

But I am not succumbing to this persistent prodding that has become the hallmark of this thread, and I will not do it, not because I cannot, but because I will not, because I don't want to, because in any event you do not deserve it as you show yourselves to be unworty by your public conduct, so there you have it. Now you can go and call it petulant or whatever but I don't care.

All of you through your conduct have taught me not to care.

As an aside, when I first read the biographies and autobiographies of famous traders, bankers and fincanciers, I was stunned to read how mean they all were and would not give anyone a tip on a stock or any information that would help the man in the street to make a dime.

I was horrified and amazed. I really was...

But very slowly, over the years I have come to understand and realise finally the reasons that drove them and what caused them to adopt these draconian attitudes.

All of you, (well nearly all) have rendered me a great service by teaching me a lesson.

The lesson is not to be generous with one's hard earned knowledge and expertise acquired at great personal cost over a very long period of time involving great expense, endless work and many setbacks along the way.

I am not here to teach any of you. Period.

As an aside, I am not a vendor. I own my own software. I have it written for me and I use it for myself and the guys and girls in my circle. I am not interested in merchandising.

Now you in the past have been particularly nasty to me on every occasion that has presented itself to you.

You have never liked it when I have contradicted you and proved you wrong and you have replied with venom. This puzzled me for a very long time.

I have tonight found out the reason...... It is very simple.

It has to do with your perception. Your own warped perception.

I take a point on this, but unfortunately it is in your favour: you are not obligated to tell us anything, but the reason is much more fundamental than this.

Firstly, before I looked at this thread properly, there was never a doubt in my mind that you could do what you claim to do - to me that was not in dispute. What is in dispute is the reasons for a thread like this, what it is that you are trying to say to us.

Secondly, I would hazard a guess that although you are very proficient at what you do, you are utterly naive about people in general - just as I was about myself and other people when I started full time employment. You have the luxury, well earned I might add, of being "free", that doesn't make you a know it all about everything, all you can say is that you can trade and trade extremely well for you to sustain yourself, whatever the market conditions.

Thirdly, the reaction you get from most posters here are typical of their egos, you know that yourself. But alas it runs deeper, much deeper. Whether you like it or not, what you are doing is akin to a Darwinist telling religious individuals that they have been duped and that all their comfortable perceptions about the world has been an elaborate hoax motivated by their's and their leaders' own inadequacies in facing the blunt truth that is literally staring at them in the face.

To be honest I personally think you actually want to teach someone, but you are disgusted with the attitude that you have recieved, and are hurt and bitter about this. But let me try and tell you the posters point of view, just imagine that:

1) you spend hours and hours, weeks, months, years studying the markets and can make a reasonably modest living, or just breaking even

2) then someone criticises you and tells you some of your beliefs are wrong and so on and so forth

3) this person provides no evidence nor proof of their convictions, whilst you are still trying to eek out a liviing, and a very hard one, out of the markets

how would you feel about this? If you were already making a fair bit of money out of the markets you would not care, but otherwise you would naturally see the person as a threat.

Let me give an example to cement things. I still recall a thread in which one poster viciously attacked skimbleshanks for saying that you can make winning trades everyday and win consistently in the thread below:

skim post

as you can see the posters don't believe her, just like some just don't believe you.

I am absolutely fed up with the lot of you, continiously behaving like badly brought up children.

My interest is in line with the object and title of this thread, my thread, and my interest is exclusively in line with it and nothing else.

Many of you see fit to use it to post your graffitti, your insults, and your improper opinions.

The object of this thread is to prove conclusively the Writer of options has the edge over the Buyer, nothing more and nothing less. except for people who wish to post here first of all to respect the object of the thread and behave properly and additionally to vote.

W those in favour of the writer having the edge over the buyer.

and

B those in favour of the buyer having the edge over the writer.

All else is of no interest to me.

If you all want to talk about is calls and mrgins and futures and whatnot go and post somewhere else, not here, I hope I will not have to tell you again, otherwise I will move this discussion to another website, you all know I mean what I say........ and I say what I mean..... and I do not hesitate to act if I so decide.

they behave that way because of all the frustration and failing, i.e nearly all of them are losers, they are losing money and it's getting to them The rest that are breaking even or making a little money don't want to see it your way and darksidding is a threat to some of their cherished beliefs. Let's have an example:

As you elaborately said on a particular thread the way you trade should have no losing runs. This goes against all the silly books and articles in the internet that says that losing runs are part of the game (see skims reply in thread link above)

Now the next time you are on a train in a carriage with commuters on their way to or from the City of London, for example, observe the readers of financial newpapers...when they are reading...they are frowning...why is this ?

The reason is that what is printed does not fit with the reality of what happens in markets.
Therefore for them, poor souls, there is a continuous subconscious subliminal battle going on inside their heads as to what's what.

Some, if not all that confusion splills on to these boards.

As a consequence of this we have several dinosaurs here persistently arguing in terms of fundamental principles which do not apply...also this is the reason why, when LIFFE closed its trading floor...many traders had to resort to using screens....the great majoriy could not hack it and went on to become taxi drivers and motorbike couriers ...(there's a good job for you Pitscum ~ Profitaker)...

This is why I am not willing to engage in discussion outside the perimeter of the title of this thread, since discussion carries the risk of educating the victims of institional indoctrination as to the true path to personal and individual freedom.

i therefore submit that the true professionals are the traders who are able to trade outside the environment of institutional collective camaraderie.... ....take them out of that environment and they are lost....and persist in boring us to tears with all this mathematical theory and fundamental nonsense...that goes on and on...but.... ...on the other hand one must be grateful that such obsessives exist, as they serve to be on the other side of the market.

Markets need liquidity. They need blinkiered victims. They need a constant stream of blinkered victims. We must be grateful for their participation. We ought not to grumble.
We ought to be tolerant and let them pontificate endlessly about their hobby horses, but please, not on this thread, whch is a thread for real professionals and not employees or ex employees.

This thread is about whether the Writers have the edge or the Buyers. Nothing more, nothing less. All other discussions about the merit of Black Sholes or Black Holes, or even Black Swans are irrelevant and frankly, extremely tedious and boring.

to end what I am trying to tell you is that you've answered your own question. You know that most of these posters will never make it, just like the ex LIFFE traders working as cabies or bike couriers since the exchange shut down, because they don't have what it takes.

On the contrary, there is nothing in your "hard earned knowledge" that is of any value to the posters here since, by default, they either have what it takes (which means that it would just be a question of time until they make it), or they don't (meaning that no matter what they do, they just can't make it), and most of them don't have what it takes because we are talking about the "naturally gifted". The only people trying to prod you and being abusive and venomous are probably those who live in the silly belief that there is some system that they can buy/learn that will generate them constant money, or that anyone could do it given sufficient instruction and training. You know yourself now that that is simply not the case

 

[SOCRATES]

very true. i understand where socrates is coming from, but i dont agree that every employee is a mug, or some tool for 'the' conspiracy either...

Where and when do I start with you Charliechan, dear oh dear....

Did I say every employee is a mug or a tool for the conspiracy ?

No, I did not.

Now how can I explain this to you in public without letting cats out of bags, let's see...

Ok...here we go.....

There are many highly intelligent individuals working within intitutional frameworks. They are made to present themselves with proof of academic achievement before they can be allowed to join the institutional framework and for them to fill pre determined slots in it.

But you see in institutions there is an inherent culture. I know this because when I was very young and inexperienced I myself underwent this pervasive and subtle indoctrination.

But I was able to break free of it and stand on my own two legs and think for myself on my own two feet. To do this, I had to unravel everything I had been persuaded to believe and review and reconstruct all of it, if not nearly all........... in order to cross from one side of the glass wall to the other, in order to gain my independence and freedom.

What I am saying is that free thought has to be earned, it does not come as a package when you assimilate institutional doctrine.

Part of the institutional doctrine is to in part "miseducate" the encumbent to keep him prisoner in the service of the institution of his choice. Part of this has the effect of disallowing him to be abe to be independent. I am not talking of easy loans and bonuses and high salaries, as they are the price the individual accepts in exchange for his freedom.

I am talking of the intellectual aspect, which is the most important.

The intellectual aspect dictates the individual will be indoctrinated to beleive certain things operate in a certain way for a certain reason, either backed up by institutional practice or protocol or via a more insidious route involving classical economics and fundamental theories.

But in real markets which are alive and thriving and proactive these ideas, which are cast in stone, do not function properly, because that is all they are, nothing more and nothing less.

Therefore the individual who persists in clinging to these tablets is inevitably due for a series of huge frights involving information shocks.

It causes the individual to have a very narrow beam perspective and a blinkered view that is very difficult to shake off unless there is a genuine willingness to be truly open minded and to be able to accept the validity of reality as it unfolds, and this, for many people whose perspectives are overbalanced with preconcieved theory, is if not difficult, then impossible to shake off, I respectfully submit.

It causes them, against all the evidence laid in front of them, streaming in real time by the way, to be rejected in favour of the comfort of theories and of preconcieved notions.

It is as if these are hobby horses they are apt to cling to forever, unaware that the realilty is very different to the beliefs they have hereintobefore been accustomed to, and to which, against all evidence to the contrary, they desperately cling to.

 

[SOCRATES]

I take a point on this, but unfortunately it is in your favour: you are not obligated to tell us anything, but the reason is much more fundamental than this.

Firstly, before I looked at this thread properly, there was never a doubt in my mind that you could do what you claim to do - to me that was not in dispute. What is in dispute is the reasons for a thread like this, what it is that you are trying to say to us.

Secondly, I would hazard a guess that although you are very proficient at what you do, you are utterly naive about people in general - just as I was about myself and other people when I started full time employment. You have the luxury, well earned I might add, of being "free", that doesn't make you a know it all about everything, all you can say is that you can trade and trade extremely well for you to sustain yourself, whatever the market conditions.

Thirdly, the reaction you get from most posters here are typical of their egos, you know that yourself. But alas it runs deeper, much deeper. Whether you like it or not, what you are doing is akin to a Darwinist telling religious individuals that they have been duped and that all their comfortable perceptions about the world has been an elaborate hoax motivated by their's and their leaders' own inadequacies in facing the blunt truth that is literally staring at them in the face.

To be honest I personally think you actually want to teach someone, but you are disgusted with the attitude that you have recieved, and are hurt and bitter about this. But let me try and tell you the posters point of view, just imagine that:

1) you spend hours and hours, weeks, months, years studying the markets and can make a reasonably modest living, or just breaking even

2) then someone criticises you and tells you some of your beliefs are wrong and so on and so forth

3) this person provides no evidence nor proof of their convictions, whilst you are still trying to eek out a liviing, and a very hard one, out of the markets

how would you feel about this? If you were already making a fair bit of money out of the markets you would not care, but otherwise you would naturally see the person as a threat.

Let me give an example to cement things. I still recall a thread in which one poster viciously attacked skimbleshanks for saying that you can make winning trades everyday and win consistently in the thread below:

skim post

as you can see the posters don't believe her, just like some just don't believe you.



they behave that way because of all the frustration and failing, i.e nearly all of them are losers, they are losing money and it's getting to them The rest that are breaking even or making a little money don't want to see it your way and darksidding is a threat to some of their cherished beliefs. Let's have an example:

As you elaborately said on a particular thread the way you trade should have no losing runs. This goes against all the silly books and articles in the internet that says that losing runs are part of the game (see skims reply in thread link above)



to end what I am trying to tell you is that you've answered your own question. You know that most of these posters will never make it, just like the ex LIFFE traders working as cabies or bike couriers since the exchange shut down, because they don't have what it takes.

On the contrary, there is nothing in your "hard earned knowledge" that is of any value to the posters here since, by default, they either have what it takes (which means that it would just be a question of time until they make it), or they don't (meaning that no matter what they do, they just can't make it), and most of them don't have what it takes because we are talking about the "naturally gifted". The only people trying to prod you and being abusive and venomous are probably those who live in the silly belief that there is some system that they can buy/learn that will generate them constant money, or that anyone could do it given sufficient instruction and training. You know yourself now that that is simply not the case

You are showing to be outstandingly perceptive and perfectly correct. I am truly impressed.

I shall be replying to you tomorrow in more detail. I am very tired after yet another really heavy but very productive and satisfying day and am having an early night if you don't mind. I have been in here since 0630 this morning, and that's enough..:cheesy:

 

[laptop1]

Where and when do I start with you Charliechan, dear oh dear....

Did I say every employee is a mug or a tool for the conspiracy ?

No, I did not.

Now how can I explain this to you in public without letting cats out of bags, let's see...

Ok...here we go.....

There are many highly intelligent individuals working within intitutional frameworks. They are made to present themselves with proof of academic achievement before they can be allowed to join the institutional framework and for them to fill pre determined slots in it.

But you see in institutions there is an inherent culture. I know this because when I was very young and inexperienced I myself underwent this pervasive and subtle indoctrination.

But I was able to break free of it and stand on my own two legs and think for myself on my own two feet. To do this, I had to unravel everything I had been persuaded to believe and review and reconstruct all of it, if not nearly all........... in order to cross from one side of the glass wall to the other, in order to gain my independence and freedom.

What I am saying is that free thought has to be earned, it does not come as a package when you assimilate institutional doctrine.

Part of the institutional doctrine is to in part "miseducate" the encumbent to keep him prisoner in the service of the institution of his choice. Part of this has the effect of disallowing him to be abe to be independent. I am not talking of easy loans and bonuses and high salaries, as they are the price the individual accepts in exchange for his freedom.

I am talking of the intellectual aspect, which is the most important.

The intellectual aspect dictates the individual will be indoctrinated to beleive certain things operate in a certain way for a certain reason, either backed up by institutional practice or protocol or via a more insidious route involving classical economics and fundamental theories.

But in real markets which are alive and thriving and proactive these ideas, which are cast in stone, do not function properly, because that is all they are, nothing more and nothing less.

Therefore the individual who persists in clinging to these tablets is inevitably due for a series of huge frights involving information shocks.

It causes the individual to have a very narrow beam perspective and a blinkered view that is very difficult to shake off unless there is a genuine willingness to be truly open minded and to be able to accept the validity of reality as it unfolds, and this, for many people whose perspectives are overbalanced with preconcieved theory, is if not difficult, then impossible to shake off, I respectfully submit.

It causes them, against all the evidence laid in front of them, streaming in real time by the way, to be rejected in favour of the comfort of theories and of preconcieved notions.

It is as if these are hobby horses they are apt to cling to forever, unaware that the realilty is very different to the beliefs they have hereintobefore been accustomed to, and to which, against all evidence to the contrary, they desperately cling to.

You should become a philosopher. I'm sure this is your niche. You would make more money writing books on philosophy "than writing options"

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . .
Whether you like it or not, what you are doing is akin to a Darwinist telling religious individuals that they have been duped and that all their comfortable perceptions about the world has been an elaborate hoax motivated by their's and their leaders' own inadequacies in facing the blunt truth that is literally staring at them in the face.
. . .

Are you sure you have that analagy the right way round?

Essentially Socrates is making semi-directional calls on the market using out-of-the-money puts when he has a "not too much downside" market view.

This, for him, is a more "comfortable" trade than (say) sell the future as,

1) he's writing a depreciating asset

2) if it goes tits up, he will almost certainly have time to roll it into a longer-dated strike, probably for a credit, unless, as most people, including him, apprecitate, the market gaps significantly down.

Add to this, the concept of "if you see a quick turn, then take it" and there you have it . . . a theory that explains his actions.

Have his actions in any way "prooved" that the writer has the "edge" in any meaningful, analytic way?

No.

I know it

You know it

He knows it.

 

[dc2000]

Hi Soc
I note that you speak of being the gatekeeper of the lounge. How does it fit in with the discussion on this thread ? Is it for traders who are looking to write options or just a chatroom about options

 

[CYOF]

Are you sure you have that analagy the right way round?

Essentially Socrates is making semi-directional calls on the market using out-of-the-money puts when he has a "not too much downside" market view.

This, for him, is a more "comfortable" trade than (say) sell the future as,

1) he's writing a depreciating asset

2) if it goes tits up, he will almost certainly have time to roll it into a longer-dated strike, probably for a credit, unless, as most people, including him, apprecitate, the market gaps significantly down.

Add to this, the concept of "if you see a quick turn, then take it" and there you have it . . . a theory that explains his actions.

Have his actions in any way "prooved" that the writer has the "edge" in any meaningful, analytic way?

No.

I know it

You know it

He knows it.

I see that somethings just never change around here!

Socrates has continued to post his Options trades in line with the purpose of the thread, but the same old crowd still carry on with their meaningless persistence in trying to ridicule and draw Socrates in to other discussions, which he has clearly stated that he will not be partaking in.

What about the Carley Garner and the CASH COW - Conservative Option Writing???

What about John Summa and his very relevant articles - more rubbish I suppose

Oh well, as I said, somethings will never change around here, and here was me thinking that you might all have been enlightened after my nice little holiday, which I must say I thoroughly enjoyed.

It is obviously clear to all by now, as per sample live trades done by Socrates, that the WRITER indeed has the advantage over the BUYER, for TRADING OPTIONS.


Nice to see that some are beginning to see differently, and that trading for consistent profits requires a lot more than just WORDS :idea:

 

[CYOF]

You should become a philosopher. I'm sure this is your niche. You would make more money writing books on philosophy "than writing options"

Yes, the crowd mentality again

 

[CYOF]

Hi Soc
I note that you speak of being the gatekeeper of the lounge. How does it fit in with the discussion on this thread ? Is it for traders who are looking to write options or just a chatroom about options

Hi dc2000,

I am sure that Socrates can speak for himself, but if you are referring to the gate keeping of the Platinum Lounge, then I may be able to answer some of your query.

It is for serious people who want to learn how to trade Options correctly for consistent profits - not for time wasting discussions in relation to nonsensical rubbish.

Talking does not make money in the markets - trading does :idea:

However, talking does serve a useful purpose - and this purpose has been mentioned many times, so I will leave you figure that one out for yourself.

 

[CYOF]

Hi Jon,

Can you please remove my green dots as requested previously?

Thank You.

 

[grantx]

Dashing Blade,

Socrates could lose his shirt, make a fortune, or breakeven. Regardless, we will be none the wiser because he hasn't (and won't) reveal the rationale for his positions.

Given he's taking quick profits, why is he trading otm back months? Negative delta is greatest itm front month, and negative theta is also greatest just above/below atm on the front month. Hovever, his vega exposure is greater on the back month. Apart from a lower gamma, where is the advantage in Mar, Apr, Jun over Feb?

Unless I've got it totally wrong.

Grant.

 

[PKFFW]

I see that somethings just never change around here!

Socrates has continued to post his Options trades in line with the purpose of the thread, but the same old crowd still carry on with their meaningless persistence in trying to ridicule and draw Socrates in to other discussions, which he has clearly stated that he will not be partaking in.

What about the Carley Garner and the CASH COW - Conservative Option Writing???

What about John Summa and his very relevant articles - more rubbish I suppose

Oh well, as I said, somethings will never change around here, and here was me thinking that you might all have been enlightened after my nice little holiday, which I must say I thoroughly enjoyed.

It is obviously clear to all by now, as per sample live trades done by Socrates, that the WRITER indeed has the advantage over the BUYER, for TRADING OPTIONS.


Nice to see that some are beginning to see differently, and that trading for consistent profits requires a lot more than just WORDS :idea:

Hello CYOF,

At no time have I ridiculed Socrates or attempted to draw him into any other discussion.

I have asked only one question. How does his writing profitable options prove the writer has an edge and the buyer does not? This question goes to the very heart of his very own stated reason for this thread. As he seems unable or unwilling to answer this question and you seem so fond of answering for him, I ask you this same question.

If I were to flip a stock standard neutrally balanced coin 100, 1000, or even 1 million times in a row and it came up heads every time does this prove the coin will always come up heads? Does it even prove that heads is the more likely outcome the next time I flip that coin? As one so fond of "clear thinking" I'm sure you would have to agree that it does not prove anything. This thread is no different. Being able to make any number of profitable trades in a row does not in and of itself constitute proof.

If Socrates is trying to claim in a round about way that the game of options is not "fair and neutrally balanced"(so to speak) then fair enough. However, this thread still does not prove his stated hypothesis as it does not account for all the variables. As one example, it has been pointed out that a buyer of options could have made the same or more money at the same time as Socrates was making money writing them. As another example, as I've mentioned before, As Socrates so often claims to have perfect knowledge and work from a point of certainty in his trading, he may be able to make just as many profitable trades in a row when buying options as he does when writing them. We will never know if that is the case as this thread does not account for that variable either.

For him to prove his hypothesis he should endeavour to come up with an experiment that accounts for all the variables. Failing that he should attempt to clearly, logicall and succinctly explain in a way that can not be refuted, why it is that the writer has an inherent edge over the buyer of an option.

As I've said before, it is interesting to see him making live calls. It clearly demonstrates that he seems to have an edge that is making him money. However, it simply does not constitute proof from a scientific or even logical point of view. No amount of stating otherwise changes that truth.

Cheers,
PKFFW