Plain Vanilla Options Trades.

[zupcon]

I What about John Summa and his very relevant articles

The article is completely irrelevant and completely discredited, and whats particularly amusing, discredited by John Summa himself in his subsequent book ! you have read John Summa's book havnt you ?

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.

You just dont understand basic statistics do you even Socrates is back peddling like crazy away from the writer has a statistical edge argument. You know it, he knows it, every single contributor to this thread knows it

 

[PKFFW]

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.

Completely true. Socrates seems to mistake proficiency in one area of knowledge for proficiency in all. Sadly this is not true.

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

The old "traders are born not made" argument. Truly the last refuge of those who can not articulate and explain their argument in any logical and meaniful way so instead choose to hide behind the idea that only a blessed few, touched by the hand of god, talented above all else, special and important in a way that mere mortals can not comprehend have what it takes to be successful at trading. What a load of crock!!

Why is it that this profession, above all others, seems so awash with this idea? You don't see surgeons going around saying "successful surgeons are born not made". You don't see scientists, engineers, or even elite athletes saying this garbage. Even creative fields such as writers, actors, painters etc undergo training.

Not everyone is going to be the Van Gough or Shakespeare of the trading world. Natural talent in any field will rise to the top. This does not mean one can not be successful at trading. Just as there are many authors out there that write pulp fiction and will never win a Pulitzer prize and yet make a very nice living. Would you say they are not a success? There are many painters who simply paint for fun and sell a painting here and there. You don't see them in the major art galleries of the world but would you deny them their success?

Trading is a profession like any other. If one takes the time and applies the dedication one can learn the skills necessary to succeed. It really is as simple as that. Sure maybe some will succeed easier than others. The only ones who fail though are the ones who quit. They did not fail because they lacked any special mystical quality god gave them at birth. They fail because they quit. Period. Those that succeed are the ones that don't quit. They take as much time as they need, dedicate as much effort as it takes until they succeed.

To all those successful in trading I say congratulations. To all those who think it is because they are somehow more special than others, more favoured by god etc I say get your hand off it and grow up.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[CYOF]

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

PK,

Firstly, as Socrates has said many times, and I will now state it again, as I am sure he is fed up saying it by now, and I now see why, and that is:

Socrates has to prove nothing to anyone :idea:

It is up to the Individual to prove it to themselves - one must think for oneself, no other way.

Now, what you all fail to see is that Socrates is presenting you all with some FACTS - and that is, live trades that show, and will always show, that when done correctly - and correctly is the KEY, for we all know that there are many ways to do the same thing - SELLING OPTIONS wins in 3 out of 4 trades.

I will post this again, and you all know where it comes from, so before the usual suspects start jumping again, here goes:

This will give you some clue why the writer has the edge!

TRADING OPTIONS

Re: RISK/REWARD.[R/R]

There are 4 categories of R/R in all the 60+ strats in options:

1. Limited loss with limited gains.

2. Limited loss with Unlimited gains.

3. Unlimited loss with Limited gains.

4. Unlimited loss with Unlimited gains


a, Which of the above 4 categories would U chose > 1,2,3,4?

b, Which one do you think is the most used by options player > 1,2,3,4?

c, Which one do you think is the most successful in making profits > 1,2,3,4?

All comments/questions welcome.

You will be surprised how many people make the wrong choice

PLEASE MAKE YOUR CHOICE/SELECTION KNOWN. You dont need to give reasons for
your choice/selection.

This is just an exercise to see how the majority think.

You will ALL be surprised as to the correct choice.

OVER 80% of options traders make the WRONG choice. Why is this?

Socrates will prove that 1) the writer WINS over the buyer, AND he will also prove to you all that 2) more than 85% of the options WILL expire WORTHLESS :idea:

Sorry that I can't say more than this. Many questions cannot be answered as it will break club rules. Socrates is here NOT to answer questions but, to PROVE the TWO points mentioned above - pure and simple.

NOW, if that is NOT an EDGE, what is?

 

[CYOF]

The article is completely irrelevant and completely discredited, and whats particularly amusing, discredited by John Summa himself in his subsequent book ! you have read John Summa's book havnt you ?

No - and I don't intend to either. I am sure that what you say may well be correct, for it is only the very few that are able to withstand the continual bombardment of nonsensical rubbish by the majority, very few, and the rest, even though they may have been enlightened at some stage, seem to slip into the cavern of ignorance many times :idea:

You just dont understand basic statistics do you even Socrates is back peddling like crazy away from the writer has a statistical edge argument. You know it, he knows it, every single contributor to this thread knows it

You really do surprise me - that much is for sure. One minute you seem to wan't to be TOLD something, then, when the information is not forthcoming, what do you do, yes, resort to the usual nonsensical rubbish, but then again, I have already identified the group on this site that will always INTERFERE, and like History, many things will just not change, and I have also shown you the reason why this happens :idea:

As for STATISTICS, let us see how all the trades finish, and what the results will be - I wonder will that conform to enough STATISTICS for you :cheesy: :cheesy:

 

[CYOF]

Once More Unto The Breech - Dear Friends

What is the EDGE - for those who are still in doubt I will lend a helping hand once more.

If you guys read this article slowly the "EDGE" will jump out at you :idea:

But, sadly, or maybe I should say, FORTUNATELY, only the humans can see it :cheesy:

http://www.investment-tools.com/options_reports_1.htm


Option Buyer wins in 1 out of 4 scenarios. Option Seller wins in 3 out of 4 scenarios.

After purchasing an option the following 4 scenarios can occur.

It is assumed that the option is held until expiration.

Scenario Results:

1. Underlying moves, favourable to the option, sufficiently to cover the cost of the option plus make profit before option expiration.

Win

2. Underlying moves, unfavourable to the option.

Loss

3. Underlying moves, favourable to the option, but not enough to cover the cost of the option, before option expiration.

Loss

4. Underlying remains the same at expiration.

Loss


Each loss for an option buyer is a win for an option seller (writer). :idea:

This shows that an option seller has an EDGE over an option buyer.

However, the option seller should sell options with high implied volatility or a high implied volatility / historical volatility ratio - for those that think this may be magical or something like that, for in all reality, it is all but common sense, but then again, read the slogan at the bottom of Socrates posts - for it just happens to be FACTUAL.

This sounds easy. Just sell options and make money :idea:

But do make sure that you know how to do it correctly first - for as I have mentioned above, there are many ways to do everything, but the usual suspects will have you all believe that there are only limited ways, and that is because they have limited minds, no other reason.

To learn how to do it correctly, what do you think would be the best solution?

Let me see?

1) Talk with monkeys?

Naw, that will not work, for monkeys can only ever give bananas

2) Talk with someone who trades this way each and every day, and posts his trades each and every day, for those that want to learn that is?

Well, let me see now, that may be worth trying, but then again, if a monkeys says it can't work, maybe I should listen to the monkey, for even though I will have an EDGE for making consistent profits, I will not be guaranteed a banana.

I will have to think some more about this, for it really is a very hard choice - LIKE YEH :cheesy:

 

[CYOF]

You Got To Know When To Hold Them - And When To Fold Them

The CASINO's and Bookies use the same category as Socrates is using :idea:

WHY are the majority of the players NOT using the same category?

The CASINO's have to have 2 criteria to pick No 3 a.

They must show they are approved to do that category b.

They have plenty of MARGIN to run positions :idea:

The players DONT need to have this criteria to play against the house :idea:

The house needs to give them the best category from the 4 to get them hooked :idea:

IT REALLY IS PLAIN AND SIMPLE

But, you need the brain to be at the correct location to understand this logic - and that is why it is important to speak with The Master Options Trader - well, that is only if you want to learn, of course.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

What is the EDGE - for those who are still in doubt I will lend a helping hand once more.

If you guys read this article slowly the "EDGE" will jump out at you :idea:

http://www.investment-tools.com/options_reports_1.htm
. . .
However, the option seller should sell options with high implied volatility or a high implied volatility / historical volatility ratio - for those that think this may be magical or something like that, for in all reality, it is all but common sense, but then again, read the slogan at the bottom of Socrates posts - for it just happens to be FACTUAL.

Now I really am confused as Socrates has stated on three (?) occaisions that he is not interested in such thing?

And, tbh, the article you cite is a not very well written "Introduction to Derivatives".

 

[PKFFW]

PK,

Firstly, as Socrates has said many times, and I will now state it again, as I am sure he is fed up saying it by now, and I now see why, and that is:

Socrates has to prove nothing to anyone :idea:

It is up to the Individual to prove it to themselves - one must think for oneself, no other way.

I never said Socrates has to prove anything to anyone. However, Socrates has stated the purpose of this thread is to prove his hypothesis. Pardon me for expecting him to actually do what he claims he wants to do.

Proof is a funny thing. True proof requires peer review to ascertain if the methods of proof account for all variables. It also requires it to be duplicatable by others. Now it has been clearly shown by myself and others that any number of profitable trades in a row does not account for all variables. Therefore this thread fails the first test. Secondly as you and Socrates have both pointed out, options expire worthless in 75% of cases. Therefore if Socrates is successful in his stated claim of being able to make an unlimited number of profitable trades in a row, it is very unlikely that his results will be duplicatable by others. Therefore this thread will very likely fail the second test.

I'm open either way as to the result. I really don't mind either way if Socrates is right or wrong. I'm merely attempting to ascertain why he believes this thread will provide the proof he claims it will. By any logic, it will not. Perhaps his efforts(if he truly does want to actually prove his hypothesis as he claims) would be better spent deriving and conducting an experiment that does actually account for all the variables rather than starting a thread merely to focus attention on himself.

Now, what you all fail to see is that Socrates is presenting you all with some FACTS - and that is, live trades that show, and will always show, that when done correctly - and correctly is the KEY, for we all know that there are many ways to do the same thing - SELLING OPTIONS wins in 3 out of 4 trades.

This may very well be true. I shall bow to the greater knowledge of those with options selling experience in this matter. However, that still does not prove that writing has an intrinsic edge over buying.

You say that if "done correctly" selling options wins in 3 out of 4 trades. Therefore, for the selling of the option to be classed as "done correctly" it must win 3 out of 4 times. Correct? Now if the definition of "done correctly" is that it must win 3 out of 4 times then anything "done correctly" will win 3 out of 4 times as per the definition. Therefore if one buys options "correctly" one will win 3 out of 4 times as per your own definition of "done correctly"

So therefore again this does not prove there is any intrinsic edge to writing over buying options.

I will post this again, and you all know where it comes from, so before the usual suspects start jumping again, here goes:

This will give you some clue why the writer has the edge!

TRADING OPTIONS

Re: RISK/REWARD.[R/R]

There are 4 categories of R/R in all the 60+ strats in options:

1. Limited loss with limited gains.

2. Limited loss with Unlimited gains.

3. Unlimited loss with Limited gains.

4. Unlimited loss with Unlimited gains


a, Which of the above 4 categories would U chose > 1,2,3,4?

b, Which one do you think is the most used by options player > 1,2,3,4?

c, Which one do you think is the most successful in making profits > 1,2,3,4?

All comments/questions welcome.

You will be surprised how many people make the wrong choice

PLEASE MAKE YOUR CHOICE/SELECTION KNOWN. You dont need to give reasons for
your choice/selection.

This is just an exercise to see how the majority think.

You will ALL be surprised as to the correct choice.

OVER 80% of options traders make the WRONG choice. Why is this?

Socrates will prove that 1) the writer WINS over the buyer, AND he will also prove to you all that 2) more than 85% of the options WILL expire WORTHLESS :idea:

I wont make a choice as I have clearly stated on more than one occassion that I know almost nothing about options.

My point in replying to this thread is not about the options but about what constitutes proof. I am more than happy to be convinced one way or the other about Socrates' hypothesis. I simply ask for actual proof though.

Sorry that I can't say more than this. Many questions cannot be answered as it will break club rules. Socrates is here NOT to answer questions but, to PROVE the TWO points mentioned above - pure and simple.

NOW, if that is NOT an EDGE, what is?

So you say Socrates doesn't have to prove anything but that he is here to prove something. You still can not explain how his live trades will actually prove anything. To avoid explaining you claim it will break your club rules. Have I got that about right?

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . .
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.
. . .

The main point, succinctly put (no pun intended)

 

[CYOF]

The Socratic Dialogue

There may be some here that will not have seen my previous post to Socrates some time ago, which just now happens to be in a location, which clearly states, that !it has absolutely nothing to do with trading"

Some will ask why do we bother posting here, when you can see that some INTERFERERS will never go away and leave people think for themselves, based on FACTUAL information.

Well, it is easy when you know, so as to speak.

It is called SELF IMPROVEMENT.

By conversing with others, we are able to see very clearly how much advanced we are in our understanding of what real KNOWLEDGE is, and more importantly, RELATIVE to what it is we are trying to accomplish - our GOAL, or GOALS.

Now, it does not matter that both parties are not on an even ground, for, the ignorance of the party that continues to argue blindly in the face of FACTS, is, in all reality, fooling no one only themselves :idea:

But, do not let them make a fool of you as well - for no one can do your thinking for you - no matter how hard they try :idea:

You must make your own decisions in life, and those decisions are always best done when one has recognised the FACTS to be TRUTHFUL, and more importantly, RELATIVE to the desired outcome, or GOAL.

For, even though some FACTS may be TRUTHFUL, they may not be RELATIVE, and by the mere FACT that they are nor RELATIVE, they will be of limited benefit in achieving the desired GOAL, and in some instances, may even HINDER or PREVENT one from achieving the desired results :idea:

The Socratic Dialogue

“Socrates was a man of knowledge but not that much knowledge. As a freshman in high school you probably knew more than Socrates. But, Socrates was a wise man. He had wisdom because he knew only one thing: that he knew nothing. His "job," so to speak, was to question the Athenian youth. It was not enough to know something. You had to know why you knew it. And this, of course, brought him to the greatest question of all: what is knowledge? What can we know? Well, for Socrates, again, his knowledge consisted in the realization that he knew nothing. This Socratic irony leaves us rather high and dry but I think there is a greater issue at stake here.

For Socrates, perhaps the highest virtue can be summed up in the phrase, "Know thyself." In other words, of all the things in the phenomenal world, there is not one so important as yourself. To know yourself means to be aware of what it is that makes you who you are. And in this respect, the one thing which reveals this knowledge is history. But people do not live alone, they live in society. And it is in society that the individual comes into contact with other individuals, all of whom are on the same quest, in varying degrees. So, for Socrates, knowledge of self does not hinge upon reflection or introspection, but conversation, hence the Socratic dialogue.

The Socratic dialogue implies that instructor and student meet on an equal footing. Dialogue means conversation between two or more people. And what is the point of Socratic dialogue? Improvement. Self-improvement of the instructor and self-improvement of the student.”

 

[A Dashing Blade]

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.

. . . . in spite of repeated requests to do so I may add

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.

Wiyhout having to resortb to using Blombergs pretty rudimentary option analysis functionality I'd say your analysis of the greeks looks spot on (happy to be corrected tho')

As to "the advantage in Mar, Apr, Jun over Feb", my guess would be "in case it goes badly tits up" ie they can be rolled back into a longer month (ie repurchase written put financed by sale of longer dated put probably for a credit - depending on choice of strike - )

 

[Splitlink]

What is the EDGE - for those who are still in doubt I will lend a helping hand once more.

If you guys read this article slowly the "EDGE" will jump out at you :idea:

But, sadly, or maybe I should say, FORTUNATELY, only the humans can see it :cheesy:

http://www.investment-tools.com/options_reports_1.htm


Option Buyer wins in 1 out of 4 scenarios. Option Seller wins in 3 out of 4 scenarios.

After purchasing an option the following 4 scenarios can occur.

It is assumed that the option is held until expiration.

Scenario Results:

1. Underlying moves, favourable to the option, sufficiently to cover the cost of the option plus make profit before option expiration.

Win

2. Underlying moves, unfavourable to the option.

Loss

3. Underlying moves, favourable to the option, but not enough to cover the cost of the option, before option expiration.

Loss

4. Underlying remains the same at expiration.

Loss


Each loss for an option buyer is a win for an option seller (writer). :idea:

This shows that an option seller has an EDGE over an option buyer.

However, the option seller should sell options with high implied volatility or a high implied volatility / historical volatility ratio - for those that think this may be magical or something like that, for in all reality, it is all but common sense, but then again, read the slogan at the bottom of Socrates posts - for it just happens to be FACTUAL.

This sounds easy. Just sell options and make money :idea:

But do make sure that you know how to do it correctly first - for as I have mentioned above, there are many ways to do everything, but the usual suspects will have you all believe that there are only limited ways, and that is because they have limited minds, no other reason.

To learn how to do it correctly, what do you think would be the best solution?

Let me see?

1) Talk with monkeys?

Naw, that will not work, for monkeys can only ever give bananas

2) Talk with someone who trades this way each and every day, and posts his trades each and every day, for those that want to learn that is?

Well, let me see now, that may be worth trying, but then again, if a monkeys says it can't work, maybe I should listen to the monkey, for even though I will have an EDGE for making consistent profits, I will not be guaranteed a banana.

I will have to think some more about this, for it really is a very hard choice - LIKE YEH :cheesy:

I do not dispute that option writers have an edge over buyers but your recommended article warns against the writing of naked options. Socrates is writing naked puts. Socrates will, probably, make money doing that for an undefined period. You have to decide in what you believe i.e. the article recommended by you for us monkeys to read, or your #2 choice, Socrates.

Split

 

[PKFFW]

.......Now, it does not matter that both parties are not on an even ground, for, the ignorance of the party that continues to argue blindly in the face of FACTS, is, in all reality, fooling no one only themselves :idea:......

Never a truer word have you posted.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[A Dashing Blade]

PK,
. . .
TRADING OPTIONS

Re: RISK/REWARD.[R/R]

There are 4 categories of R/R in all the 60+ strats in options:

1. Limited loss with limited gains.

2. Limited loss with Unlimited gains.

3. Unlimited loss with Limited gains.

4. Unlimited loss with Unlimited gains


a, Which of the above 4 categories would U chose > 1,2,3,4?

b, Which one do you think is the most used by options player > 1,2,3,4?

c, Which one do you think is the most successful in making profits > 1,2,3,4?

All comments/questions welcome.

You will be surprised how many people make the wrong choice

PLEASE MAKE YOUR CHOICE/SELECTION KNOWN. You dont need to give reasons for
your choice/selection.

. . .

Tell you what Bulldozer/CYOF/Struchio . . . why don't you start the debate off by telling us what your choice is and why.

No?

Thought not.

 

[CYOF]

I never said Socrates has to prove anything to anyone. However, Socrates has stated the purpose of this thread is to prove his hypothesis. Pardon me for expecting him to actually do what he claims he wants to do.

Proof is a funny thing. True proof requires peer review to ascertain if the methods of proof account for all variables. It also requires it to be duplicatable by others. Now it has been clearly shown by myself and others that any number of profitable trades in a row does not account for all variables. Therefore this thread fails the first test. Secondly as you and Socrates have both pointed out, options expire worthless in 75% of cases. Therefore if Socrates is successful in his stated claim of being able to make an unlimited number of profitable trades in a row, it is very unlikely that his results will be duplicatable by others. Therefore this thread will very likely fail the second test.

I'm open either way as to the result. I really don't mind either way if Socrates is right or wrong. I'm merely attempting to ascertain why he believes this thread will provide the proof he claims it will. By any logic, it will not. Perhaps his efforts(if he truly does want to actually prove his hypothesis as he claims) would be better spent deriving and conducting an experiment that does actually account for all the variables rather than starting a thread merely to focus attention on himself.

This may very well be true. I shall bow to the greater knowledge of those with options selling experience in this matter. However, that still does not prove that writing has an intrinsic edge over buying.

You say that if "done correctly" selling options wins in 3 out of 4 trades. Therefore, for the selling of the option to be classed as "done correctly" it must win 3 out of 4 times. Correct? Now if the definition of "done correctly" is that it must win 3 out of 4 times then anything "done correctly" will win 3 out of 4 times as per the definition. Therefore if one buys options "correctly" one will win 3 out of 4 times as per your own definition of "done correctly"

So therefore again this does not prove there is any intrinsic edge to writing over buying options.

I wont make a choice as I have clearly stated on more than one occassion that I know almost nothing about options.

My point in replying to this thread is not about the options but about what constitutes proof. I am more than happy to be convinced one way or the other about Socrates' hypothesis. I simply ask for actual proof though.

So you say Socrates doesn't have to prove anything but that he is here to prove something. You still can not explain how his live trades will actually prove anything. To avoid explaining you claim it will break your club rules. Have I got that about right?

Cheers,
PKFFW

You see my good friend PK, you are what is termed INSPIRED. :idea:

I have again gone to great lengths to show all how they can always act in their own best interests, and what is more, I have also explained why the majority find this very hard to understand.

Unfortunately, the only way is by DIALOGUE, and I commend you on admitting that you know nothing about Options, for that is indeed the first step, and what you must do, in FACT, is adopt the same views that I hold, and that is, I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING, really :idea:

I will try and elaborate further for some may be interested, but it will be a very small minority.

If someone jumps off a bridge for a reward, how many do you think would follow if the same reward was forthcoming?

How many do you think would way up all the possibilities before jumping?

How many would walk straight up, jump without even thinking.and then come back and do it again for the same reward?

Think hard about this one - for it is indeed RELATIVE - a lot more RELATIVE than you will ever imagine.

Forget about FACTS based on TALKING, and look at FACTS based on DOING :idea:

I have already told ZU that we will see the STATISTICS when all trades are completed - is that not enough FACTS based on DOING - for if not, then please tell me, what do we need to do, bring in a crate of bananas to hand out

As Charlton rightly says - JUST DO IT :idea:

Regards,

 

[barjon]

............................There may be some here that will not have seen my previous post to Socrates some time ago, which just now happens to be in a location, which clearly states, that !it has absolutely nothing to do with trading"

Some will ask why do we bother posting here, when you can see that some INTERFERERS will never go away and leave people think for themselves, based on FACTUAL information.

Well, it is easy when you know, so as to speak.

It is called SELF IMPROVEMENT.

By conversing with others, we are able to see very clearly how much advanced we are in our understanding of what real KNOWLEDGE is, and more importantly, RELATIVE to what it is we are trying to accomplish - our GOAL, or GOALS.

Now, it does not matter that both parties are not on an even ground, for, the ignorance of the party that continues to argue blindly in the face of FACTS, is, in all reality, fooling no one only themselves :idea:

But, do not let them make a fool of you as well - for no one can do your thinking for you - no matter how hard they try :idea:

You must make your own decisions in life, and those decisions are always best done when one has recognised the FACTS to be TRUTHFUL, and more importantly, RELATIVE to the desired outcome, or GOAL.

For, even though some FACTS may be TRUTHFUL, they may not be RELATIVE, and by the mere FACT that they are nor RELATIVE, they will be of limited benefit in achieving the desired GOAL, and in some instances, may even HINDER or PREVENT one from achieving the desired results :idea: ...................................


cyof

Firstly, I see you made some effort to reduce your shouting (capitals) content on your return, but it hasn't lasted long - please desist.

Secondly, you still persist in describing those who disagree or question your basic premise as "interferers", "monkeys", "limited minds" and this sort of abuse is simply not on and likely to lead to degeneration of the thread (again) into an exchange of insults. Whilst you were away the disagreements had, in the main, been conducted in a civilised fashion without accompanying abuse/insult and that is as it should be. So again, please desist.

Please regard this as a warning. Thank you.

jon

 

[CYOF]

Tell you what Bulldozer/CYOF/Struchio . . . why don't you start the debate off by telling us what your choice is and why.

No?

Thought not.

Db,

Befoe I reply, please tell me, are you the one who claims to be of a medical background - and if so, would you like to clarify a bit more for us, please.

Thank You.

 

[CYOF]

............................There may be some here that will not have seen my previous post to Socrates some time ago, which just now happens to be in a location, which clearly states, that !it has absolutely nothing to do with trading"

Some will ask why do we bother posting here, when you can see that some INTERFERERS will never go away and leave people think for themselves, based on FACTUAL information.

Well, it is easy when you know, so as to speak.

It is called SELF IMPROVEMENT.

By conversing with others, we are able to see very clearly how much advanced we are in our understanding of what real KNOWLEDGE is, and more importantly, RELATIVE to what it is we are trying to accomplish - our GOAL, or GOALS.

Now, it does not matter that both parties are not on an even ground, for, the ignorance of the party that continues to argue blindly in the face of FACTS, is, in all reality, fooling no one only themselves :idea:

But, do not let them make a fool of you as well - for no one can do your thinking for you - no matter how hard they try :idea:

You must make your own decisions in life, and those decisions are always best done when one has recognised the FACTS to be TRUTHFUL, and more importantly, RELATIVE to the desired outcome, or GOAL.

For, even though some FACTS may be TRUTHFUL, they may not be RELATIVE, and by the mere FACT that they are nor RELATIVE, they will be of limited benefit in achieving the desired GOAL, and in some instances, may even HINDER or PREVENT one from achieving the desired results :idea: ...................................


cyof

Firstly, I see you made some effort to reduce your shouting (capitals) content on your return, but it hasn't lasted long - please desist.

Secondly, you still persist in describing those who disagree or question your basic premise as "interferers", "monkeys", "limited minds" and this sort of abuse is simply not on and likely to lead to degeneration of the thread (again) into an exchange of insults. Whilst you were away the disagreements had, in the main, been conducted in a civilised fashion without accompanying abuse/insult and that is as it should be. So again, please desist.

Please regard this as a warning. Thank you.

jon

Good morning Jon,

How are you today, well I hope.

Firstly, I will try, but no guarantee, as my mind is becoming corrupt, but I am working on rectifying it.

Secondly, please remove my green dots as requested, thank you.

Thirdly, Profitaker, over on The Options Edge thread, told me to GFY, and what is more, he said that if I did not know what it meant, then go and ask Socrates, for he has told Socrates the same thing many times.

Now, can you please tell me what this means, for I do not know?

And, if this is something very rude, more rude that CAPITALS, why is that Profitaker was not banned for such vulgarity - if it is vulgar of course, for I still do not know what it means?

So, please do explain?

Thank You Jon,

 

[PKFFW]

You see my good friend PK, you are what is termed INSPIRED. :idea:

I have again gone to great lengths to show all how they can always act in their own best interests, and what is more, I have also explained why the majority find this very hard to understand.

Unfortunately, the only way is by DIALOGUE, and I commend you on admitting that you know nothing about Options, for that is indeed the first step, and what you must do, in FACT, is adopt the same views that I hold, and that is, I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING, really :idea:

I will try and elaborate further for some may be interested, but it will be a very small minority.

If someone jumps off a bridge for a reward, how many do you think would follow if the same reward was forthcoming?

How many do you think would way up all the possibilities before jumping?

How many would walk straight up, jump without even thinking.and then come back and do it again for the same reward?

Think hard about this one - for it is indeed RELATIVE - a lot more RELATIVE than you will ever imagine.

Forget about FACTS based on TALKING, and look at FACTS based on DOING :idea:

I have already told ZU that we will see the STATISTICS when all trades are completed - is that not enough FACTS based on DOING - for if not, then please tell me, what do we need to do, bring in a crate of bananas to hand out

As Charlton rightly says - JUST DO IT :idea:

Regards,

Firstly I know what I am. I know what I am not. I also know that I do not know all that I am and all that I am not. As you have said, self knowledge is what is important. Therefore what you believe me to be is of no matter or consequence to me, thankyou.

No need to bring in any statistics CYOF. Just explain how this thread constitutes proof.

I care about people jumping off bridges about as much as I care if Socrates can make an unlimited number of profitable trades in a row. That is to say not at all. What I do care about is proof and why it seems Socrates and yourself can not explain why you believe this thread constitutes that proof.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[Splitlink]

Good morning Jon,

How are you today, well I hope.

Firstly, I will try, but no guarantee, as my mind is becoming corrupt, but I am working on rectifying it.

Secondly, please remove my green dots as requested, thank you.

Thirdly, Profitaker, over on The Options Edge thread, told me to GFY, and what is more, he said that if I did not know what it meant, then go and ask Socrates, for he has told Socrates the same thing many times.

Now, can you please tell me what this means, for I do not know?

And, if this is something very rude, more rude that CAPITALS, why is that Profitaker was not banned for such vulgarity - if it is vulgar of course, for I still do not know what it means?

So, please do explain?

Thank You Jon,

Everybody knows what that means! How could you, possibly, be so lacking in the knowledge of English grammar?