Plain Vanilla Options Trades.

[PKFFW]

Look....I am at my wits end with you (TIC)....... ........and ...I have tried to explain things clearly to you without hurting your feelings....... ........but it seems that everything I explain is either misinterpreted or misunderstood...just like Profitaker does....so in my desperation I have telephoned Bulldozer...and made him promise to keep the monkey nuts and banans and the horns in the groin out of it...and for him to help me to find a way to explain things to you once and for all.

Now Bulldozer is less diplomatic than I am....Bully does not do diplomacy at all....it is not in his vocabulary....you must uderstand this....he just gets to the point and that's it.

Now Bully explains...and if he were here he would explain it himself ...using horns in the groin and monkey nuts and bananas to illustrate his point....that all of this is about brains.

He explains and he agrees with me about traders being born and not made.

Before you explode...let me continue, right ?

He says you and Profitaker are the same.....he says both of you have the brains in the wrong place....at the opposite end of the anatomy in which brains ought to be.

He says traders are born and the reason he says is because they have the brains in the right place and not in the wrong place. He says you have to be born like that. He says....

He also explains that writers have the edge because they take money from buyers.

He goes on to elaborate, in his own inimitable way.....and at this moment I had to calm him down a bit...he elaborates that....writers have the edge because they collect money from the buyers they don't give it to the buyers...they get it from the buyers instead....

He also explains....and I must say he did this very well....he explains that skilled writers alternate.

He explains first that skilled writers take money from the buyers until the buyers have no more money because they have lost it buying puts....then....they turn their attention to taking money from the other buyers who have bought calls until they have no more money...and then they extract all the money from these and then turn their attention to the others...which I think and you must admit is a very good explanation.

And he elaborates that because the buyers have the brains in the wrong place and the writers have the brains in the right place then the writers have the edge...they have to....and that that is the proof.

Now how many times does it have to be explained to be understood ?

Well at least this Bulldozer character can stay mostly on topic. His logic is as flawed as yours though.

Now you and he seem to be defining an edge as "taking money from another person(a buyer in this case)". This definition of edge is entirely different to any and all definitions that you have attempted to provide thus far. However, setting that aside, we will go with this definition.

As it is entirely possible for a buyer to take money from a writer, this falls within Bulldozer's definition of an edge. Therefore by Bulldozer's own definition of edge, there is no inherent and specific edge to writing options. Further to that, no amount of posting profitable trades from writing options will discount the possibility that money can be taken from a writer of options by a buyer of options. Hence this thread in no way serves to prove the edge as Bulldozer defines edge.

So once again your post only serves to argue for the opposite of your hypothesis and we are all left waiting for this proof of which you speak.

As for the other reason, that the buyer has 3 out of 4 chances to get it right, I am not disputing that. However, that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about your assertion that posting profitable trades proves the writer has the edge over the buyer. This is clearly not the case and nothing you have posted(including the trades themselves) proves otherwise.

It seems to me what you are really trying to say is that the option writer has more ways of profiting than the options buyer. This may very well be the case. However that is an entirely different assertion than the one you have constantly stated yet failed to prove.

Now onto that matter of traders being born and not made once again.

Firstly, it would seem this Bulldozer person has no idea of physical anatomy. It is biologically impossible to have the brain situated anywhere in the body except the head.

Secondly, if he is basing his assertion that traders are born and not made on where the brain is located within each person, then he can do nought but agree with me. That is to say that every living human can become a successful trader as every living human's brain is in the same anotomical place as every others.

If this Bulldozer chap does not agree with the above then he is once again basing his conclusions on faulty logic. This seems to be a recurring theme amongst your group so I'm not surprised.

Cheers,
PKFFW

edit: typo

 

[Splitlink]

So buyers of options are the dumb money?

Feared of thier own proficiency?

Uncertain of thier expectancy?

And to top it all off...

Have no real eye for the markets?

Buyers of options are dumb the same as buyers of insurance are dumb, which is, obviously, not true.

But there are not very many poor insurance companies around, are there?

There are are buyers of options, and plenty of them, who are dumb,yes. They are speculators who, most of the time, lose their money.

Split

 

[SOCRATES]

I think you well and truly socked them tonight

Perhaps they are at the other end of your trades

Happy trading all,

starspacer

"soc it to them" as Kojak used to say...

 

[SOCRATES]

yes, I believe in Soc's own world, he truly believe's he has. But who's really laughing at who?

UTB

Yes exactly...... ....who is really laughting ? The put buyers or the writers ? Who....... .........?

 

[SOCRATES]

Well at least this Bulldozer character can stay mostly on topic. His logic is as flawed as yours though.

Now you and he seem to be defining an edge as "taking money from another person(a buyer in this case)". This definition of edge is entirely different to any and all definitions that you have attempted to provide thus far. However, setting that aside, we will go with this definition.

As it is entirely possible for a buyer to take money from a writer, this falls within Bulldozer's definition of an edge. Therefore by Bulldozer's own definition of edge, there is no inherent and specific edge to writing options. Further to that, no amount of posting profitable trades from writing options will discount the possibility that money can be taken from a writer of options by a buyer of options. Hence this thread in no way serves to prove the edge as Bulldozer defines edge.

So once again your post only serves to argue for the opposite of your hypothesis and we are all left waiting for this proof of which you speak.

As for the other reason, that the buyer has 3 out of 4 chances to get it right, I am not disputing that. However, that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about your assertion that posting profitable trades proves the writer has the edge over the buyer. This is clearly not the case and nothing you have posted(including the trades themselves) proves otherwise.

It seems to me what you are really trying to say is that the option writer has more ways of profiting than the options buyer. This may very well be the case. However that is an entirely different assertion than the one you have constantly stated yet failed to prove.

Now onto that matter of traders being born and not made once again.

Firstly, it would seem this Bulldozer person has no idea of physical anatomy. It is biologically impossible to have the brain situated anywhere in the body except the head.

Secondly, if he is basing his assertion that traders are born and not made on where the brain is located within each person, then he can do nought but agree with me. That is to say that every living human can become a successful trader as every living human's brain is in the same anotomical place as every others.

If this Bulldozer chap does not agree with the above then he is once again basing his conclusions on faulty logic. This seems to be a recurring theme amongst your group so I'm not surprised.

Cheers,
PKFFW

edit: typo

Good morning, I have the pre to do and it is the opening of the games in 30 mins, so I will have to deal with you later....but in my experience, which is considerable I find traders are born and not made otherwise otherwise everyone would be able to do all of this naturally and without having any difficulties which is obviously not the case. The clue lies in how often and how much it has to be explained.

 

[SOCRATES]

Buyers of options are dumb the same as buyers of insurance are dumb, which is, obviously, not true.

But there are not very many poor insurance companies around, are there?

There are are buyers of options, and plenty of them, who are dumb,yes. They are speculators who, most of the time, lose their money.

Split

It looks as if the penny is beginning to drop with you at last....

 

[Splitlink]

It looks as if the penny is beginning to drop with you at last....

That penny dropped a long time ago. That does not skirt the problem of the Black Swan, though.

The problem is, as I see it, that someone, such as you, can write puts for an indefinite period and get away with it. Make a career of it, though, and just the odd failure can clean you out.

Split

 

[SOCRATES]

That penny dropped a long time ago. That does not skirt the problem of the Black Swan, though.

The problem is, as I see it, that someone, such as you, can write puts for an indefinite period and get away with it. Make a career of it, though, and just the odd failure can clean you out.

Split

No, because I know exactly what I am doing and why.

If a Black Swan appears I have two folded copies of the Financial Times ( Weekend Editions...because they are Fatter... ....) ...and....by clapping them together hard, if the Black Swan is close that will frighten it.....:cheesy: ....and if it is really really close that will knock it out.... ....so you need not fret and worry about me, thanks.........everything is planned in advance....everything.

 

[Splitlink]

No, because I know exactly what I am doing and why.

If a Black Swan appears I have two copies of the Financial Times ( Weekend Editions...because they are Fatter... ....) ...and....by clapping them together hard, if the Black Swan is close that will frighten it.....:cheesy: ....and if it is really really close that will knock it out.... ....so you need not fret and worry about me, thanks.........everything is planned in advance....everything.

Socrates, I never worry about you, really!

Split

 

[CYOF]

Update:~ (last week's results)
######

Trades Written:~

A. 5 X FTSE 100 June 6025 puts @ 129.5...closed out @ 107........(5 X 225) = £1125 profit.

B. 5 X FTSE 100 June 6025 puts @ 132.... ..closed out @ 122....(5 X 100) = £ 500 profit

C 5 X FTSE 100 Mar 5975 puts @ 57..............closed out @ 35.......( 5 X220) = £ 1100 profit

8 3 X FTSE 100 Apr 5925 puts @ 65................closed out @ 48........( 3 X 170) = £ 510 profit

10 3 X FTSE 100 Mar 6125 puts @ 85...........closed out @ 65........( (3 X 200) = £ 600 profit

11 3 X FTSE 100 Mar 6175 puts @ 100.......... closed out @ 86........(3 X 140) = £420 profit

13 1 X FTSE 100 Mar 6225 puts @ 164.... ......closed out @ 132.....(1 X 320) = £ 320 profit


Total realised profits so far..................£4475=

(this is not including trade E, carried out by CYOF)

Open Positions:~

Trades D, 6F, 7 and 9. all in FTSE 100 Apr 5925 puts, totalling 23 puts written at a mean average price of
48.8260 each.

Market price to buy last seen is 44ish....


therefore current unrealised profit for these is (4.82 23 X 10) = £1108 =


....................And


Trade number 12...

3 X FTSE 100 Index puts 6225 May written @ 115.5 and last seen 75 ish....

therefore current unrealised profit for this one is (3 X 40.5 X 10 ) = £ 1215.


Therefore realised profits = £ 4475=

..............plus.....

Unrealsed profits so far = £2323=
__________________
SOCRATES

#########################

Update:~ this week's results:~
#########################
( I have made an adjustment and added trade 15# to make up the series)

This week

Trades

14 3 X 6175 Apr 94 -78 = 16 (3 X 16 X 10)= £480 profit realised

18 3 X 6125 May 89 -79)= 10 (3 X 10 X 10) = £300 profit realised

Total profit realised for this week = £780=
#####

Plus
#####

Profits carried down from last week ........................................................................£4475=

Total profit realised so far = .........................................................................................£5255=

Unrealilsed profits:~

Trade numbers D, 6F, 7, and 9
23 in total 5925 Apr
@ mean average price of 48.826 less market price at close 30 = (23 X 18.826 X10) = £ 4330 (£4329.98)

plus

Trade number 12

3 X Mar 6225 @115.5 - 45.5 = (3 X 70 X 10) = ........................................................................................£2100+

plus

Trade number 15
6 Apr 6175 @ 84 - 67.5 = (6 X 16.5 X 10) = .................................................................................................£990=

plus

Trade number 15#
3 May6225 @ 110 - 107= (3 X 3 X 10) = .............................................................................................................£90

plus

Trade number 16
3 May 6075@ 74.5 - 71= (3 X 10 X 3.5) =............................................................................................................ £105

plus
Trade number 17
6 Mar6175 @ 42.5 - 36.5 = (6 X 6 X10 )=........................................................................................................... £360

plus

Trade number 19
2 May 5925 @62 - 48 = (2 X 14 X 10)= .........................................................................................................£280=

plus
Trade number 20
1 May6225 @ 116 - 107 = (1 X 9 X10) = ..........................................................................................................£90=

Thus showing all unrealised profits ..............................total of £8345 =

Therefore showing all profits to date, less costs to be ..........£5255= (total realised profits)

and

all unrealised profits to date less dealing costs to be..........£8345= (total unrealsed profits)

Making a total combination of realised and unrealised profits so far of........................................................................................................£13,600=

And all in under a month...in fact a total of only 13 trading days...

And...not to rub it in....but because it is a fact...every single position is profitable and has been profitable.....may this please my fans and infuriate my detractors, I Thank You.:cheesy:

Thank you for getting my little trade in there Socrates, the first of many to come, thanks to you know who, the Master Options Trader, the one who is related to the JCB, the one with the big box of yellow bananas, and the 1,000,000 Kg bag of peanuts.

I would first like to congratulate you on your trades, which have proved the Fact that you were able to do what you set out to do on this thread, i.e. taking money from Put Buyers.

The Majority voted for W.

The Small Minority said neither had the edge.

Nobody voted for the Buyer having the edge, that I can see, and perhaps this in itself proves that the Writer has the edge :?:

Now, for those disrespectful Interferers / Detractors, perhaps they would like to show 10-20 trades where the Buyers of Options win

This will prove their point that neither the Writer, nor the Buyer, has the Edge.

Because I'm now at a higher level of knowledge since joining the Elite34S at citybulls.com I am confident to say that the challenge by those that said neither have the edge, will Not take up this challenge to prove that the buyers can do the same, by showing 10-20 winning trades, one after the other, similar to what Socrates has done.

If they were able to do this, this would prove their point that both the writers and the buyers have No Edge over each other.

I am willing to offer a wager of 2/1 that neither Mr Profitaker, nor his supporters, will take up the challenge within 6 months.

Profitaker, my odds for you are 3/1, that is your £1,000 to my £3,000, and the money goes to charities for the "Children in Need" and the "Help the Aged"

Your move guys.

We are ALL waiting.

Good Luck, as some might say, but remember, Some Of Us do not believe in Luck, or any such nonsense like that.

Slainte,

 

[SOCRATES]

Socrates, I never worry about you, really!

Split

That's good to know because it relieves me of a huge responisbility...:cheesy:

 

[Splitlink]

That's good to know because it relieves me of a huge responisbility...:cheesy:

I never said that I relieved you of your responsibilities. I said that I never worried about you. You like everything so easy!

If you are not responsible, you are irresponsible.

Split

 

[DT]

Buyers of options are dumb the same as buyers of insurance are dumb, which is, obviously, not true.

But there are not very many poor insurance companies around, are there?
Split

I think you'll find that plenty of 'names' at lloyds have on occasion lost rather large ammounts of money over the years.

I'm not saying that soc doesn't know what he is doing - he seems to be doing rather well tbh... but I don't think that what he is doing is necessarily a suitable method for everyone - nor do I feel that it actually proves that writers have the edge over buyers - it simply shows IMO that, so far, Soc may have an edge. I'll carry on watchin the thread with interest though.

 

[Jack o'Clubs]

I think you'll find that plenty of 'names' at lloyds have on occasion lost rather large ammounts of money over the years.

I'm not saying that soc doesn't know what he is doing - he seems to be doing rather well tbh... but I don't think that what he is doing is necessarily a suitable method for everyone - nor do I feel that it actually proves that writers have the edge over buyers - it simply shows IMO that, so far, Soc may have an edge. I'll carry on watchin the thread with interest though.

Good post. Lloyds 'names' are an excellent analogy for 'amateur' option writers.

 

[SOCRATES]

I never said that I relieved you of your responsibilities. I said that I never worried about you. You like everything so easy!

If you are not responsible, you are irresponsible.

Split

You are joking.....you don't know me for you to stupidly say I like everything easy.

You yourself are not capable of working 14 - 15- 16- 17 and even 18 hour days for years on end, 24 /7.

Your perception is one of laziness....well, you are very mistaken, I tell you.

But your perception is not uncommon, so I am not surprised in the least.

Yours is the perception of the great majority, the herd, who think stupidly, if they are able to think at all, that is.....

 

[CYOF]

I think you'll find that plenty of 'names' at lloyds have on occasion lost rather large ammounts of money over the years.

I'm not saying that soc doesn't know what he is doing - he seems to be doing rather well tbh... but I don't think that what he is doing is necessarily a suitable method for everyone - nor do I feel that it actually proves that writers have the edge over buyers - it simply shows IMO that, so far, Soc may have an edge. I'll carry on watchin the thread with interest though.

What you think, or I think, or anyone else thinks, for that matter, does not change the Facts.

We have at our disposal, and have since man evolved into the conscious being that he is, what are called The Immutable Laws.

Immutable means that "they can not be changed" - EVER.

To comply with these Laws is to reach a state of Harmony.

Harmony brings prosperity in all endeavours, including Financial :idea:

But, and this is the hard part, the very hard part, in order to utilise these Immutable Laws one must use the little spongy thing between their ears - which most people seem to think is between their legs :idea:

 

[PKFFW]

......I would first like to congratulate you on your trades, which have proved the Fact that you were able to do what you set out to do on this thread, i.e. taking money from Put Buyers.........

That is not what he set out to do though CYOF and you know it.

He set out to prove there is some inherent edge that is specific to writing options over buying them.

His trades have not proven this hypothesis in the least. They have proven, as you say, that he is able to take money from put buyers. That is all they have proven.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[SOCRATES]

Good post. Lloyds 'names' are an excellent analogy for 'amateur' option writers.

And your comment is just as silly. You ought to think carefully about what you post before you post it.

 

[Splitlink]

You are joking.....you don't know me for you to stupidly say I like everything easy.

You yourself are not capable of working 14 - 15- 16- 17 and even 18 hour days for years on end, 24 /7.

Your perception is one of laziness....well, you are very mistaken, I tell you.

But your perception is not uncommon, so I am not surprised in the least.

Yours is the perception of the great majority, the herd, who think stupidly, if they are able to think at all, that is.....

That's better! I just thought that you were getting a little too friendly, just because I agree with you from time to time

 

[CYOF]

That is not what he set out to do though CYOF and you know it.

He set out to prove there is some inherent edge that is specific to writing options over buying them.

His trades have not proven this hypothesis in the least. They have proven, as you say, that he is able to take money from put buyers. That is all they have proven.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Oh, let me use the little spong mass between my ears, one second please.

To take money from the PUT BUYERS means that the PUT BUYER looses - NO?

This means that the PUT WRITER WINS - NO?

How many of the trades done are winners - ALL TO DATE - NO?

Now, that was not TOO hard, was it