Watch HowardCohodas Trade Index Options Credit Spreads

[HowardCohodas]

Of course, as Howie will tell you anyone with a low post count is just an a$$hole.

Not everyone. It's just that you are such an outstanding example of the syndrome, you have almost reached icon status.

 

[Martinghoul]

That's what I said all along. I said that I used back-tests to qualify a strategy for the next phase of the qualification process.

Great, then I fail to see why you take issue with meanie's comment.

 

[HowardCohodas]

Great, then I fail to see why you take issue with meanie's comment.

His statement, "How about you show us some proof or reasoning as to why you think you ARE going to make money in the long run, i.e. a backtest result?"

I cannot prove anything with back-testing other than the possibility that the strategy might be profitable if it gets through the downstream stages of the qualification process.

I was simply surprised when "back-testing" and "proof" were used in the same sentence in that way.

 

[Pazienza]

Most of your post is so much rubbish that it's not worth my time to refute it item by item.

However, if you are prepared to back up your claim that I may be a fraud, call my bet.

God, this is tedious. You might be a fraud at worst - hardly something that needs much backing up is it? You might be a fraud, I might be a fraud, Martinghoul might be a fraud, meanreversion might be a fraud, the moon might be made of cheese, and so on. You even highlighted "at worst", and you still think you're being clever taking objection to a perfectly reasonable statement.

Numerous people who know a great deal more than you have explained in detail why your system won't work and why you're not fit to teach it to anybody. This is so abundantly clear that one wonders why you persist in denial. I put forward two possibilities - that you might be deluded or that you might be aware of the facts but unwilling to admit them due to dishonesty. There are others - for example, you might be right and everyone else might be wrong rolleyes, you might lack the understanding to see why you're wrong, and so on.


That earns you the right to see may cards and show them to everyone else.

Why do you post drivel such as this? Who on earth do you think you're impressing? And what does it mean?

.

 

[Pazienza]

Not everyone. It's just that you are such an outstanding example of the syndrome, you have almost reached icon status.

I'm not the only one though am I, Howie? Despite your claims to the contrary.

Would you really like to revisit that little episode?

 

[HowardCohodas]

.

"This is tedious" is the only competent thing I can recall you posting since you have been on the forum. Congratulations.

OTOH, every chicken scratching in the dirt comes up with a worm once in a while.

 

[HowardCohodas]

I'm not the only one though am I, Howie? Despite your claims to the contrary.

Would you really like to revisit that little episode?

I agree, you are not the only low post count no-nothing. I doubt that you can prove I ever claimed that you were the only one. However, you are certainly an exceptional example of one.

 

[Pazienza]

"This is tedious" is the only competent thing I can recall you posting since you have been on the forum. Congratulations.

OTOH, every chicken scratching in the dirt comes up with a worm once in a while.

If that's the best you can come up with, you'd be better off not replying.

Don't you get tired of being thrashed every time we have an exchange?

Read what I write, and then think carefully whether you've got a valid complaint - that will save you from looking so silly.

 

[HowardCohodas]

.

You are to be congratulated for another accomplishment. You waste so much of my time refuting your untruthful statements that I am now almost certain to open another thread for those who would like a better information to trash ratio when discussing this thread topic.

Civil and truthful discourse are simply not part of your DNA.

 

[Pazienza]

I agree, you are not the only low post count no-nothing. I doubt that you can prove I ever claimed that you were the only one. However, you are certainly an exceptional example of one.

That was not your claim, as I am sure you are well aware. Since you appear to have had another attack of selective memory syndrome, I will briefly recap.

I accused you of having a negative attitude towards posters with low post counts. You said that this only applied to me. I pointed out a post you made very shortly before, attacking another poster for expressing an opinion. Your intemperate attack was based on the poster's low post count. You looked foolish for attempting to deny something that was so obvious and so readily provable.

And I think you'll find the inaccurate term you are somewhat blindly groping for begins with "know" rather than "no".

Again, more facts that are abundantly clear. Why the denial and attempt to twist the truth? Dishonesty, delusion, stupidity? Or is there another explanation?

 

[Pazienza]

Civil and truthful discourse are simply not part of your DNA.

Actually, everything that I have stated is fact. What you have stated is not, and it is reasonable to speculate why you would make false statements.

A restricted thread would be a good idea from your point of view. Far too many inconvenient facts being set out on this one. As a marketing exercise it will be a total disaster.

 

[HowardCohodas]

Actually, everything that I have stated is fact. What you have stated is not, and it is reasonable to speculate why you would make false statements.

A restricted thread would be a good idea from your point of view. Far too many inconvenient facts being set out on this one. As a marketing exercise it will be a total disaster.

Blah, blah, blah, ...

 

[Pazienza]

Blah, blah, blah, ...

And now you've retreated about as far as it's possible to go into that particular corner. Seriously, don't you get tired of being shown up every time? You would look far less foolish if you just admitted that you were wrong.

This is meant as friendly advice.

By the way, the post over which you stupidly decided to start this latest altercation was - ironically - a call for everyone to stop wasting time saying that your method doesn't work and instead to simply let you get on with it. You really are a buffoon.

 

[DionysusToast]

Great, then I fail to see why you take issue with meanie's comment.

I suspect Howard doesn't have the backtest results - hence a bunch of strawmen will now be thrown at the request in order to drown it in nonsense.

Just a hunch.

 

[Martinghoul]

His statement, "How about you show us some proof or reasoning as to why you think you ARE going to make money in the long run, i.e. a backtest result?"

I cannot prove anything with back-testing other than the possibility that the strategy might be profitable if it gets through the downstream stages of the qualification process.

I was simply surprised when "back-testing" and "proof" were used in the same sentence in that way.

I understood what he meant perfectly well... At any rate, Howard, may I ask how you performed the backtest, just out of curiosity? Given that the POT concept is instrumental to your strategy and it's, essentially, a third-party (TOS) calculation, am I right in assuming that the backtest was done in TOS?

 

[meanreversion]

It would assist enormously with the bias of this thread if we could find another t2w member amongst the 200k+ out there who also trades a similar (i.e. perpetual short gamma and vol) strategy.. there must be at least one other proponent of this method?

 

[RPEX]

Of course, as Howie will tell you anyone with a low post count is just an a$$hole.

Not everyone. It's just that you are such an outstanding example of the syndrome, you have almost reached icon status.

I reached 100 posts, what do i win?

 

[meanreversion]

You need at least 4 figures.


<-------------- ta da !

 

[HowardCohodas]

I understood what he meant perfectly well... At any rate, Howard, may I ask how you performed the backtest, just out of curiosity? Given that the POT concept is instrumental to your strategy and it's, essentially, a third-party (TOS) calculation, am I right in assuming that the backtest was done in TOS?

No, I did not implement it within ToS.

The back testing had several different generations as I explored different methods of estimating the probability of the underlying instrument price reaching the short strike. Initially, I used an approach that used historical closing prices of the underlying instrument. With this data I would calculate all the n-day excursions and use the percentage of those excursions as my estimate of the probability of reaching.

There were two or three generations in between. For the last tests I used PoT once I learned of its existence. I saved the end of day data from the ThinkBack application in ToS to include it.

All of this was written in PHP. Sometimes run on my workstation, sometimes run on the server where I host many of my web sites.

Another long answer to a short question.

 

[DionysusToast]

Interesting - so did you build a database of prices and historical POT values and options prices?

Can you publish the results here, or are they secret squirrel?