starspacer
Well-known member
- Messages
- 270
- Likes
- 17
What is your hourly rate please??ian said:
- Status
Profitaker
Established member
- Messages
- 773
- Likes
- 70
Socrates
There are only 1 of 2 ways you could know the margin requirements on those alledged short Puts positions, that you claim to be yours.
1) You could have an intricate knowledge of SPAN, which is way beyond your comprehension
or
2) You could just post up what your broker charges to your account.
You cannot do either, because you have no such positions, do you.
Here is the current position, including margin, of your current paper trades;
There are only 1 of 2 ways you could know the margin requirements on those alledged short Puts positions, that you claim to be yours.
1) You could have an intricate knowledge of SPAN, which is way beyond your comprehension
or
2) You could just post up what your broker charges to your account.
You cannot do either, because you have no such positions, do you.
Here is the current position, including margin, of your current paper trades;
SOCRATES said:
I actually understand that I do not understand, simply on point of fact that you have witheld the information that you have. Nonfalsifiable statements are by their very nature just that, and serve no other purpose than pathetic mind games (that's the default assumption by the way), even though the intentions behind them might have some validity.
Life is not, alas, about equality, it's very much about inequality - otherwise no evolution (but that's another subject for another day). I have never wanted you to teach nor see everyone here as equals, but if you are going to put a purpose for this thread with the object of proving your point then I'm afraid you've done it in the most flawed manner. In short if you had warned the viewers of this thread that there might be a draw down and that you would have to ride through a loss, but still hold on, no one would raise any objections. You have not done so and that is why the objections have been raised. It is your perogative to do so, that is not in dispute. But to anyone looking at this thread, dear boy, what you've done is the mathematical equvalent of proviiding a partial proof to a theorem where you have left the major steps out, and changed part of the hyphothesis mid way! To borrow Wolfgang's Pauli's expression: "your proof is not even wrong".
SOCRATES said:
this arena for your select few is also unfalsifiable is it not? Therefore we, as the viewers, cannot say neither here nor there about it. Leaving the markets aside, any reasonably intelligent viewer seeing this thread will be forced to conclude that you are playing mind games, that's a forgone conclusion.
Certain classes of problems are not solvable because of the posing of the problem is inaccurate and lacking in enough data to make a solution possible. For problems of this kind it matters not whether you are a Newton (probably the greatest intellect the human race has ever produced) or a dunce (as you are so fond of calling many people here), because the problem is not solvable with the information given. With the information given on this thread, your saying that you are "responsible and circumpect and prudent" falls into that category.
SOCRATES said:
Your "equals" you say? Care to name them? More to the point, why can you reveal to them the information that you deny us? Since, by hyphothesis we are dunces and therefore it will do us no good, revealing all to us would not change a thing. And if these members of the Star Chamber are making money consistently and are "free" from having to go on treadmills, pray tell why on earth would they care to hear what you have to say about writers and buyers of options? Because it would be extraneous to their knowledge base since they are already making consistent money? It would be like millionaires discussing amongst themselves what kind of Ferrari they are driving and what they recommend to each other.
Care to talk about your "edges"? Because I think you should because, from your perverse logic, most people here are not fit to consume it, which means that if it is divulged it will fall on deaf ears and will not be used. BUT the ones with MERIT, ABILITY and CONDUCT will see it for what it is and assimulate it, so you would have done what you set out to do, without costing yourself at all - is that not logical?
And finally:
SOCRATES said:
is total utter BS. What happens is that there is always someone who, whether benignly or not, dominates the proceedings. In the history of science originators always had to defend themselves from attacks from other scientists, sometimes rather vehemently, that's what being on top is usually all about, and strangely enough that is how progress is made. If this lovely place is full of "peace, respect and delight" why post here for so much grief. I don't know about you, Albert, but when I don't like someone or something and I am not obligated to be around them, I avoid them.
My view:
What you have tried to do in this thread is to give "hints" at the journey and how to get there. Not that I have been NOT noticing mind. You have tried to use this thread as a partial stimulus for that purpose and to get those that are "deserving". You are trying to use this thread to say that that the answer to your "edges" is highly complex and multidimensional, and cannot really be written out as a sentence, that the nature of the answer is not what we think.
In retrospect it like the founding of quantum theory, first moving away from the deterministic view to the very uncomfortable probabilistic view of nature. The initial experiments confounded standard classical theories and scientists that held on to these deterministic views found their theories did not agree with experiment. A radical rethink of the framework needed to be done . . .
In similar light the majority of people who use indicators rely on back testing/statistical edges, and even, dare I say it, a probabilistic view of the markets of varying degrees (some even think the markets are totally random!!). You and your darksidders are hinting at a radical rethink of all this, so it is only obvious that you face opposition, sort of in the light of the quantum era going in reverse (probabilistic to deterministic) . . . .
A Dashing Blade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,373
- Likes
- 170
SOCRATES said:
But perhaps, just perhaps, not in the way you's like to think.
<Wanders into thread, looks around, "Post your margin", "Writers have the edge", Post your margin", "Writing is professional and writers have the edge", "Post your margin" . . . ", gets bored, wanders off . . . >
Respect to Stoic and Profittaker and for that matter Socrates. A very engaging intellectual debate. Now lets see what we have here. We have the advocates of rationale trying to explain the actions of skill. The skill master is trying to articulate ie quantify in tangible terms the factors that contribute to ability. Nothing in life beats experience (except stamina - but thats a whole different topic) Socrates put his money where his mouth is and started out as I understand it with the premise the writer has the advantsge. The surgeon sets out knowing of his challenge. A friends mother in for varicose veins dies on the operating table - the surgeon ability and the risks were all in the favour of the patient - didn't work out. I dont recollect, but please do correct me as this has been a long long thread, Socrates saying that the writer has an overwhelming advantage. It may have been a marginal advantage.
Without intending to get embrolied, having read without posting as this really isn't something I'm more than marginally familiar with, I followed the original idea - writers have the edge, now I'll demonstrate this.
A series of good trades then resulted, but the market moved against the position(s) being taken and in my limited understanding I'd have expected the position(s) to be closed out, an overall profit being seen, and an acknowldgement that these things do occasionally happen but with sensible management they're not a major issue.
Whilst I do comprehend that the 'dip' can be weathered if your pockets are deep enough to put up the margin, which I believe anyone making these trades would have to do, I do not understand why anyone would want to - close and reopen when conditions are better would seem to offer a bigger profit and less exposure.
If Soc was trying to show that those with sufficient resources could afford to ride the fall, secure in the knowledge that eventually they'd show a profit (which he is on the way to demonstrating) I would have thought that a better demonstration would show how to maximise the return despite an unusual market event throwing a spanner in the works. (Not that unusual, after all - I tend to mentally compare this to the fall from New Year 1999 for example, or 9/11).
I wish Soc nothing but well, we've spoken on the phone (a good while back) and he's a charming individual in my view, he does have an unfortunate tendency to call us all monkeys and I am definitely one of those wondering how 'what happened' can possibly be resolved against 'what was intended'.... I'm not an idiot, a great many T2W members aren't, I would welcome Soc's explanation of how this didn't all go awry should he choose to explain where so many of us have misunderstood. He is under NO obligation to do so, in my view, although the common perception is bound to prevail otherwise.
Soc and I usually disagree, frankly, which should (logically) make him a damn fine trader as he'll be doing the opposite of what I do most of the time. I'd agree with Credo that this debate has in fact been worthwhile, if not for the purpose originally stated.
A series of good trades then resulted, but the market moved against the position(s) being taken and in my limited understanding I'd have expected the position(s) to be closed out, an overall profit being seen, and an acknowldgement that these things do occasionally happen but with sensible management they're not a major issue.
Whilst I do comprehend that the 'dip' can be weathered if your pockets are deep enough to put up the margin, which I believe anyone making these trades would have to do, I do not understand why anyone would want to - close and reopen when conditions are better would seem to offer a bigger profit and less exposure.
If Soc was trying to show that those with sufficient resources could afford to ride the fall, secure in the knowledge that eventually they'd show a profit (which he is on the way to demonstrating) I would have thought that a better demonstration would show how to maximise the return despite an unusual market event throwing a spanner in the works. (Not that unusual, after all - I tend to mentally compare this to the fall from New Year 1999 for example, or 9/11).
I wish Soc nothing but well, we've spoken on the phone (a good while back) and he's a charming individual in my view, he does have an unfortunate tendency to call us all monkeys and I am definitely one of those wondering how 'what happened' can possibly be resolved against 'what was intended'.... I'm not an idiot, a great many T2W members aren't, I would welcome Soc's explanation of how this didn't all go awry should he choose to explain where so many of us have misunderstood. He is under NO obligation to do so, in my view, although the common perception is bound to prevail otherwise.
Soc and I usually disagree, frankly, which should (logically) make him a damn fine trader as he'll be doing the opposite of what I do most of the time. I'd agree with Credo that this debate has in fact been worthwhile, if not for the purpose originally stated.
dc2000
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,766
- Likes
- 129
Im not a great fan of the "everything is known in advance" but it is crystal clear that this move is all about March expiry which leads me to wonder why the exposure has not been reduced on the front months by creating a straddle or buying back the positions when the dust had settled
Profitaker
Established member
- Messages
- 773
- Likes
- 70
Grant
May I borrow them after you please ?
DaveJB
As I understand it this thread was created to show that option writers have the edge. That could never be proved without thousands and thousands of trials, never mind 20 trades.
Along the way, and almost as an aside, the thread originator (dear old Soc) has had his personal trading ability called into question. He has made a series of dire directional calls and worse still displayed zero risk management. He could have (and should have) adjusted risk by selling Calls, buying Puts, shorting futures, closing shorts, or any combination thereof, yet he did..........?
Margin parameters are late tonight. I'll post up todays P/L + margins, unless the Soc beats me to it
May I borrow them after you please ?
DaveJB
As I understand it this thread was created to show that option writers have the edge. That could never be proved without thousands and thousands of trials, never mind 20 trades.
Along the way, and almost as an aside, the thread originator (dear old Soc) has had his personal trading ability called into question. He has made a series of dire directional calls and worse still displayed zero risk management. He could have (and should have) adjusted risk by selling Calls, buying Puts, shorting futures, closing shorts, or any combination thereof, yet he did..........?
Margin parameters are late tonight. I'll post up todays P/L + margins, unless the Soc beats me to it
Profitaker
Established member
- Messages
- 773
- Likes
- 70
Further evidence, if it were needed, that the writers have the edge
Hi Profittaker,
actually you're going about this back to front - yes, it would take an awful lot of examples to 'prove' something, but it actually only takes one adverse example to prove something false. That writing has the edge is a hypothesis, to 'prove' it's probably correct takes a large amount of writes and an overall result of profit (how big a profit is also open to debate) - how large a number of trades would be open to debate, but would usually come down to the proponent (Soc) saying 'if I get it right x times will you accept I proved it?' and the rest of the community agreeing that 'x' was a fair trial. Mathematically he;d demonstrate that his result came out a statistically significant number of times.
In trading I'd suggest that showing he was right 'X times out of Y' was sufficient, provided that risk was controlled, and losses limited. It's this part I am unconvinced by, like many (yourself included) I am disinclined to accept bottomless pockets as a trading strategy. I am, however, open to being persuaded otherwise, should a cogent and persuasive argument exist. My default position is more one of 'Warren Buffet can afford to do this, on a small scale, I doubt anybody else could'. Another winner is 'Buy the DJIA', Stoploss is, say. 150000 pts, exit only on 10 pts profit - reckon that strategy is worth a '99.9999% winners' advert.....
I'm not being 'bamboozled' by Soc, personally I don't think he has proved anything, but I accept I might be missing something - although I can't think what - so welcome any explanation he can give that will persuade me he was right. Whilst it is entertaining to hound him it's not likely to improve the debate and he isn't going to enlighten us in his current mood, is he?
I do not demand anything from Soc, he is an adult and will understand that I don't accept his point as proved - if he chooses to leave it that way then so be it. If, ultimately, in his opinion I'm a dumbo incapable of understanding then we'll just have to disagree, I won't take it as 'fighting talk' though because I know him as a nice chap to talk to. H emight be an axe murderer in reality, but to me he's a nice chap, I regret very much that this isn't the common experience but you don't have to be called a monkey too often for a degree of animosity to be generated <g>. I'm not arguing with you, but simply reading through this thread HAS been educational, for all sorts of reasons, most of them unintended.
actually you're going about this back to front - yes, it would take an awful lot of examples to 'prove' something, but it actually only takes one adverse example to prove something false. That writing has the edge is a hypothesis, to 'prove' it's probably correct takes a large amount of writes and an overall result of profit (how big a profit is also open to debate) - how large a number of trades would be open to debate, but would usually come down to the proponent (Soc) saying 'if I get it right x times will you accept I proved it?' and the rest of the community agreeing that 'x' was a fair trial. Mathematically he;d demonstrate that his result came out a statistically significant number of times.
In trading I'd suggest that showing he was right 'X times out of Y' was sufficient, provided that risk was controlled, and losses limited. It's this part I am unconvinced by, like many (yourself included) I am disinclined to accept bottomless pockets as a trading strategy. I am, however, open to being persuaded otherwise, should a cogent and persuasive argument exist. My default position is more one of 'Warren Buffet can afford to do this, on a small scale, I doubt anybody else could'. Another winner is 'Buy the DJIA', Stoploss is, say. 150000 pts, exit only on 10 pts profit - reckon that strategy is worth a '99.9999% winners' advert.....
I'm not being 'bamboozled' by Soc, personally I don't think he has proved anything, but I accept I might be missing something - although I can't think what - so welcome any explanation he can give that will persuade me he was right. Whilst it is entertaining to hound him it's not likely to improve the debate and he isn't going to enlighten us in his current mood, is he?
I do not demand anything from Soc, he is an adult and will understand that I don't accept his point as proved - if he chooses to leave it that way then so be it. If, ultimately, in his opinion I'm a dumbo incapable of understanding then we'll just have to disagree, I won't take it as 'fighting talk' though because I know him as a nice chap to talk to. H emight be an axe murderer in reality, but to me he's a nice chap, I regret very much that this isn't the common experience but you don't have to be called a monkey too often for a degree of animosity to be generated <g>. I'm not arguing with you, but simply reading through this thread HAS been educational, for all sorts of reasons, most of them unintended.
aveJB
Profitaker
Established member
- Messages
- 773
- Likes
- 70
Actually I’m not going about anything, because I have nothing to prove or disprove. My own position (in case you’ve missed it) is that there is no inherent edge to buying rather than writing options, over the long run. Options are sometimes over-priced and sometimes under-priced, but this cannot be known until after the fact.DaveJB said:
Actually it’s not. That writing has an edge is simply a question of implied volatility Vs realized volatility. If implied > realized = writing has the edge, if implied < realized = buying has the edge. Of course realized volatility over the period of the option’s life cannot be known until the options expire. This is why over / under pricing of options cannot be known until after the fact and that is why a consistent edge cannot be achieved either way. However, it can be proven statistically using historical data, and I know of one entire book written on this subject alone. The conclusion, obviously, was that no edge exists.DaveJB said:
But what exactly is it he is trying to demonstrate ? How does taking a bullish position (short Puts) demonstrate that the writer has the edge anymore than another bullish position (long Calls) would demonstrate the buyer has the edge ?DaveJB said:
A more scientific way to prove writer / buyer edge would be be to sell delta neutral straddles, not directional trades like short Puts.
This demonstration is absurd in the extreme.
If he was trying to demonstrate that he personally has a superior trading ability, then perhaps he should call it a day, before everybody comes to the same conclusion.DaveJB said:
Profitaker said:
This is beyond me!
I, just, cannot understand how writing naked puts and winning hundreds of trades in the process, but getting knocked out at the end can be construed as having an edge. I, at one time, thought that Socrates might get away with this batch of trades that he has opened and that the Black Swan might not appear until this thread had been, triumphantly concluded by him and forgotten. But it goes to show that BS, in one form or another is, always, quite close by.
Split
Profitaker
Established member
- Messages
- 773
- Likes
- 70
That is one MASSIVE IV spike, up 3% in a single day. That could wipe quite a few short players out.
Stand by your bunks for margins around 20:00 tonight. That will be quite horrific (my own included).
Stand by your bunks for margins around 20:00 tonight. That will be quite horrific (my own included).
Jack o'Clubs
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,554
- Likes
- 342
Those March expiry 6175's have a bit to do before Friday. That's 6 from 47 that won't help Soc's thesis.
Last edited:
- Status
