Watch HowardCohodas Trade Index Options Credit Spreads

[HowardCohodas]

A lesson in very poor and transparent evasion techniques. Little else.

DT had it right, although I think this fiasco is occasioned by delusion rather than a desire to engineer a wind up.

Highly entertaining though .

I would take your observations seriously, even though they differ from mine, had you established any kind of credibility so far. Unfortunately your contributions to date have been so ridiculous that no one who has paid attention to your posts can take you seriously.

 

[Pazienza]

I would take your observations seriously, even though they differ from mine, had you established any kind of credibility so far. Unfortunately your contributions to date have been so ridiculous that no one who has paid attention to your posts can take you seriously.

You've made this assertion before, without providing any evidence. The invitation to do so still stands by the way.

You have been comprehensively pwned on this thread, and regrettably it is you that cannot be taken seriously, a situation made considerably worse by the yawning chasm that separates your pretensions and your ability.

I'm quite willing to expand upon "poor and transparent evasion techniques" if you would like to be embarrassed again.

 

[HowardCohodas]

You've made this assertion before, without providing any evidence. The invitation to do so still stands by the way.

You have been comprehensively pwned on this thread, and regrettably it is you that cannot be taken seriously, a situation made considerably worse by the yawning chasm that separates your pretensions and your ability.

I'm quite willing to expand upon "poor and transparent evasion techniques" if you would like to be embarrassed again.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. I'd suspect you of being a multi-nic of DT, but he has a far superior intellect to yours and it takes more effort to point out his distortions.

If you would like to embarrass me, please do so. We haven't had much lulz here lately. However, keep it to a reasonable level of civility. DT passed over the line.

And don't overwhelm me. It does take work to continue my current level of trading success. :smart:

 

[UgoDadeo]

I am still confused by the rolls.

A roll was executed within Iron Condor (#15) by closing a PUT spread (#64) and opening another PUT spread (#74) closer to the NDX price.

Howard -- what was the debit to close #64 – about 0.18 ?
Did this make the roll a losing trade with more market risk (-0.18 +0 .15 = -0.03)???

A roll was executed within Iron Condor (#16) by closing a PUT spread (#55) and opening another PUT spread (#77) closer to the RUT price.

Looks like the same issue here – closing debit #55 @ 0.15 and picked up 0.16 for #77. In other words, it looks like a positive 0.01 before commissions with more market risk (strike closer to market price).

What am I missing on these rolls?

 

[Pazienza]

Just because you say it doesn't make it so. I'd suspect you of being a multi-nic of DT, but he has a far superior intellect to yours and it takes more effort to point out his distortions.

If you would like to embarrass me, please do so. We haven't had much lulz here lately. However, keep it to a reasonable level of civility. DT passed over the line.

And don't overwhelm me. It does take work to continue my current level of trading success. :smart:

To take but one example, the frankly bizarre (bizarre, that is, if you were genuine) "$100,000 to $165,000" question.

Such a simple and indeed pertinent question, one that would have been very helpful to those interested in ascertaining the scale of your alleged returns, and yet what contortions you performed in an effort to avoid giving a straight answer! Eventually it became too embarrassing for you to ignore, but your attempt speaks volumes.

We see similar things regularly from those hoping to misrepresent their returns. "50% in a single trade!" for example when one has achieved a 0.5R return.

 

[HowardCohodas]

I am still confused by the rolls.

A roll was executed within Iron Condor (#15) by closing a PUT spread (#64) and opening another PUT spread (#74) closer to the NDX price.

Howard -- what was the debit to close #64 – about 0.18 ?
Did this make the roll a losing trade with more market risk (-0.18 +0 .15 = -0.03)???

A roll was executed within Iron Condor (#16) by closing a PUT spread (#55) and opening another PUT spread (#77) closer to the RUT price.

Looks like the same issue here – closing debit #55 @ 0.15 and picked up 0.16 for #77. In other words, it looks like a positive 0.01 before commissions with more market risk (strike closer to market price).

What am I missing on these rolls?

Let me narrate the roll and see if that clears it up. I'm reading across the spread row in the Dashboard for this narrative.

Spread #64 was sold for a credit of 1.55. It was closed when it had reached 81% of its potential profit. (.29) This spread, by itself provided a return of 5.3%.

Spread #74 was opened to replace it for a credit of 1.60. At the close of today it had already reached 42% of its potential profit.

 

[Pazienza]

Talking of inferior intellects Howie, I notice there's no reply to this yet:

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/gen...6-all-systems-lead-failure-8.html#post1376954

Jump in, make a fatuous comment that is immediately disproved, then try to pretend that nothing has happened. Interesting way of going about things.

The example linked to is obviously extremely trivial, but the pattern does appear to hold good even when you are discussing serious matters with informed posters on your own thread, a thread you are presumably hoping will help to attract students to your new venture. Your tactics for not addressing inconvenient posts range from ignoring them to attempting to blame any difficulties on your questioner's "poor communication skills" - as I say, an interesting way of going about things for someone wishing to promote their educational offering.

 

[HowardCohodas]

Talking of inferior intellects Howie, I notice there's no reply to this yet:

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/gen...6-all-systems-lead-failure-8.html#post1376954

Jump in, make a fatuous comment that is immediately disproved, then try to pretend that nothing has happened. Interesting way of going about things.

This is obviously extremely trivial, but the pattern does appear to hold good even when you are discussing serious matter with informed posters on your own thread.

Well then, lets have examples from this thread. This is where you promised to embarrass me.

The other one is unworthy as anyone reading of the entire thread would have understood my point.

 

[HowardCohodas]

To take but one example, the frankly bizarre (bizarre, that is, if you were genuine) "$100,000 to $165,000" question.

Such a simple and indeed pertinent question, one that would have been very helpful to those interested in ascertaining the scale of your alleged returns, and yet what contortions you performed in an effort to avoid giving a straight answer! Eventually it became too embarrassing for you to ignore, but your attempt speaks volumes.

We see similar things regularly from those hoping to misrepresent their returns. "50% in a single trade!" for example when one has achieved a 0.5R return.

Your summaries of what transpired are as dishonest and useless as DT's. If you want me to respond, reference the post where I said something that you believes meet your criteria of my embarrassment. Do a bit of due diligence. Otherwise you are just a clone of DT and no one takes him seriously anymore when he is criticizing me.

 

[Pazienza]

Well then, lets have examples from this thread. This is where you promised to embarrass me.

The other one is unworthy as anyone reading of the entire thread would have understood my point.

This is a good example of what I'm talking about - I have already given an example taken from this thread.

As for the other one, reading the whole thread makes no difference. I said that you displayed a negative attitude towards posters with low counts, you replied that I could only claim this in my case. I pointed out that my original point was occasioned by your disdainful treatment of another member with a low post count, solely on the grounds of said low count.

Do you see what I mean? Absolutely staggering, and it can only make you look foolish, although not as foolish as your subsequent attempts to evade the fact that you have been skewered through your own foolishness.

 

[HowardCohodas]

This is a good example of what I'm talking about - I have already given an example taken from this thread.

As for the other one, reading the whole thread makes no difference. I said that you displayed a negative attitude towards posters with low counts, you replied that I could only claim this in my case. I pointed out that my original point was occasioned by your disdainful treatment of another member with a low post count, solely on the grounds of said low count.

Do you see what I mean? Absolutely staggering, and it can only make you look foolish, although not as foolish as your subsequent attempts to evade the fact that you have been skewered through your own foolishness.

If this is the best you've got, and you can't even understand time sequence in passing answers, you've bored me to the point that I might go to bed early.

Please don't tell me this is your A game.

 

[UgoDadeo]

10 JAN 2011 Trading Summary

A complete Iron Condor (#30) was formed on the NDX weekly (JAN2 11) with both a PUT spread (#75) and a CALL spread (#76).

A roll was executed within Iron Condor (#15) by closing a PUT spread (#64) and opening another PUT spread (#74) closer to the NDX price.

A roll was executed within Iron Condor (#16) by closing a PUT spread (#55) and opening another PUT spread (#77) closer to the RUT price.

Let me narrate the roll and see if that clears it up. I'm reading across the spread row in the Dashboard for this narrative.

Spread #64 was sold for a credit of 1.55. It was closed when it had reached 81% of its potential profit. (.29) This spread, by itself provided a return of 5.3%.

Spread #74 was opened to replace it for a credit of 1.60. At the close of today it had already reached 42% of its potential profit.

Well .... it proves that I can't read

I misread the columns of the Dashboard and confused the Condor labeling with the credit received.

Thank you for walking me through the entries.

And I see I'm in the middle of a far more exciting conversation ...so I'll go back to watching the college punting contest. Go Tigers!

 

[Pazienza]

Your summaries of what transpired are as dishonest and useless as DT's. If you want me to respond, reference the post where I said something that you believes meet your criteria of my embarrassment. Do a bit of due diligence. Otherwise you are just a clone of DT and no one takes him seriously anymore when he is criticizing me.

Another good example of what I am talking about. But since you seem to want to play a delaying game:

There was considerable confusion over the actual returns you had achieved - you mentioned a figure of 65%, which most people would take to mean 65% of the account employed to trade this particular method. This could have been confirmed very easily and you were given an opportunity to do so by a poster who asked you simply whether you would have made $65,000 had you started with an account of $100,000.

You declined to do so, going instead to extraordinary lengths to avoid giving a straight answer to the question.

The most likely reason for this is that you wished to give the impression of achieving a higher return than you had, without having to definitely commit yourself. This is something that should embarrass you, as is the frankly absurd attempt to avoid answering a straight and simple question.

 

[Pazienza]

If this is the best you've got, and you can't even understand time sequence in passing answers, you've bored me to the point that I might go to bed early.

Please don't tell me this is your A game.

Another nonsensical reply.

You made a claim that I could base my allegation on my own case alone. I swiftly provided evidence that this wasn't so, giving an example of another case. That is two cases, and not just my own as you falsely claimed. You were very swiftly proven wrong.

And yet you attempt to wriggle out of this using fatuous insults such as "Please don't tell me this is your A game" and irrelevant gibberish like "you can't even understand time sequence in passing answers". Please explain what you mean by "time sequence in passing answers" and how this alters the facts I have stated above.

 

[HowardCohodas]

Another good example of what I am talking about. But since you seem to want to play a delaying game:

Just what part of "I wont respond until you can provide the referenced post that was made by me," don't you get?

Either perform or quit polluting this thread!

 

[Pazienza]

Just what part of "I wont respond until you can provide the referenced post that was made by me," don't you get?

Either perform or quit polluting this thread!

This is simply another delaying tactic.

I'm sure that you remember the incident perfectly well, and any serious reader of this thread will of course come through it before he gets here. I am not going to wade through this thread again at your behest.

You were asked a very straightforward question that would make it clear to anyone reading what level of returns you were claiming, an issue that had given rise to considerable confusion. You went to great lengths to avoid giving a straight answer, until you felt you could no longer continue to do so.

Prospective students should be wondering why this is the case, and why you attempted to hide behind irrelevancies such as the fact that account size was not important. To any person of average intelligence, it was apparent that the questioners were not claiming that it was. They simply (in order to eliminate doubt) were asking what the return would have been per dollar in your starting account, since the way it was expressed as a percentage was not clear.

65%, but of what? They gave you the opportunity to state clearly that this related to your entire account, or instead to something else. You did not wish to clarify this, and it is reasonable to wonder why this should be the case.

 

[HowardCohodas]

This is simply another delaying tactic.

You lose! Good by.

 

[Pazienza]

You lose! Good by.

I am afraid not - I have raised a number of factual points, and you have not been able to answer a single one. Instead, you have rather proved my case for me by replying in your usual fashion.

I have no interest in arguing with you; I am only here because you attacked me in the most bizarre and nonsensical fashion (detailed above) as soon as I arrived, and I was interested to see your thread.

From reading through it I am convinced (along with several others) that you really don't understand what you are doing. If you genuinely want to learn you really do need to alter your attitude. You should also try to avoid getting into arguments - you are hopeless at arguing anything, your compensatory tactics are extremely childish and would struggle to fool a heavily sedated chimp.

Why on earth, for example, do you claim that there is only one case of something when I am able to find another within seconds? And why would you then seek to defend your ludicrous position that there is in fact only one? I can copy and paste the whole exchange here if you really want.

You would be far better admitting that you were wrong and just moving on.

Anyway, I've said all I really want to say and so have you by the looks of it. This can hardly be doing your thread any good so I'm happy to wish you luck with your trading and leave it there, unless you want to say anything else about me or actually answer any of the points I've raised.

 

[meanreversion]

65%, but of what? They gave you the opportunity to state clearly that this related to your entire account, or instead to something else. You did not wish to clarify this, and it is reasonable to wonder why this should be the case.

The 65% number is fairly meaningless as it relates to the capital risked, and not the actual trading pot. HC has said he provides no guidance on money management, so you won't get 65% unless you risk suicidal amounts. In practice, I think he commits 15-20% of his account to this strategy; if this is a "sensible" level it would imply a return of maybe 15% of trading account to date.

So if we leave the 65% number to one side, the question then becomes - is there any positive expectancy within the system itself? Selling options is always seductive, but implicit within any such strategy is the belief that one can out-fox the market when there's a large move. I have a friend who was very nearly wiped out on May 6th last year, from being short index puts.. it only takes one such event to destroy several years of profits.

HC isn't selling outright options though, he's selling spreads where the losses are capped. In addition, he believes his loss will never be greater than 30% of the max loss. This is the crux of the strategy, and it remains to be seen how this pans out.

 

[DionysusToast]

MR - what remains to be seen, exactly?

Are you saying a total loss is impossible? These are indices we are talking about - they futures markets move when the options markets are closed. It is impossible to guarantee a maximum 30% loss, unless HC is hedging in the futures markets. It's hard to guarantee a 30% max loss when the options markets are open on these relatively thin instruments.

With indices, it's just not possible to 'guarantee' a 30% max loss without introducing futures trades as a hedge.

As 1 full loser will wipe out 30-40 winners, he only needs 3 or 4 full losers per year to wipe out the years profits.