Search results

you guys are still arguing about tiny leaflets and ignoring the forest you keep talking about relative probabilities. that's groovy, but it ignores that larger issue. risk management (money management) is #1. you can't trade, if you blow out yer capital. 90% or so of traders do so in...

also, all this absurdity aside, recall the original question that was WHICH IS MORE RISKY NAKED CALLS OR NAKED PUTS by definition, a situation with UNDEFINED and INDETERMINATE risk is more risky than a situation with DEFINED DETERMINATE risk. again, risk management 101

"Actually under the lognormal distribution it is more likely for a stock to double than it is to go to zero. He has a point on that. That is because log(S/So) is normally distributed and not S/So. However a stock cannot go to infinity because there are practical considerations that forbid...

i gotta agree with riskmanager game theory is where it's at. i love niederhoffer as well. don't find it particularly USEFUL, but i find it interesting trading is all about managing risk, imo. that's why game theory is so important (imnsho). investing is different. investing - i...

"Wow, you're right. It took me the 10th time you said "it's all arithmetic" to really understand how naive I was being. It IS more likely for a stock to double then it is to go to 0! It IS more likely for my sold call to blow out my portfolio then my sold put!" you sling more strawmen than L...

"You're making the claim that a move to infinity "torching your portfolio" is more likely then a move to 0 "torching your portfolio"." you already know what a move to zero will do to your portfolio you do not know what the maximum possible upside move will do, because that is an...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from whitster: "what you say is "true"--- however--you can't predict peoples emotions into the future based on past price movement" yes, i can. and do. it;s how i make a living so don';t tell...

"what you say is "true"--- however--you can't predict peoples emotions into the future based on past price movement" yes, i can. and do. it;s how i make a living so don';t tell me it can't be done

you are using the "talented coin" analogy. it is a poor analogy for the following reasons. every coin flip is random price movement is not random. price movement is based on - opinion ie supply/demand. at a minimum, if people think that the fact that stock X is moving up is...

"I tend to disagree. The risks should be simmetric. It means only one thing - the risk on naked calls is also limited" the ignorance is ASTOUNDING. first of all, whether it "should" be symmetrical (note spelling), is not the issue. stocks don't always move the way they SHOULD move...

you don't know what u are talking about if u can't understand basic arithmetic risk on naked calls - unlimited risk on naked puts - limited and predetermined hope that helps

i get tired of people who can't understand simple arithmetic "If distribution were irrelevant, then you have found a secret that no options trading market maker has discovered in the last 30 years of trading options. Since they're willing to sell both puts and calls at roughly the...

distribution is irrelevant that only has to do with distribution. the normal or expected variance in values big whoop you still don't get it this is math. it's actually arithmetic. it is not difficult. writing a naked put has a PREDEFINED and LIMITED risk. that is...

this is math. and just like the game theory thread, it seems a lot of people have trouble with math naked calls have (theoretically) infinite risk if you write a 30 call on ABCD. ABCD is selling @20 let's say you get $100 premium you collect yer premium. nifty tomorrow...

not to mention we NEED negative stuff to make the market climb higher the market climbs a wall of worry too much good news, and everybody is long and market goes dooooooooown it's called "wall of worry" rinse, lather, repeat when everybody is long, there is nobody left to buy...

there are market makers in futures. that is certain however, futures are very different from stocks in the # of ways listed, and no market maker (s) has the power to significantly move the entire DOW or SP contract except for SOME wiggle during the doldrums period. this is in marked contrast...

futures are different than stocks futures are zero sum for every person long YM, there is a person short YM at the same price point that is NOT true of stocks. in light of this, that is why i said what i said. also, futures don't have specialists.

there are no "buys and sells" for every buy there is a sell. that's a given there is order flow though you cannot have more buys than sells or vice versa

Kensho you are wrong "There are few rags to riches stories out there, but they are interesting - like the single mom on welfare that authored the Harry Potter books." there are TONS of rags to riches stories out there, and even a study of the top 500 wealthiest in the US every year...

indexes are non-trending most of the time. or to put it in market profile -terms - they are trending "horizontally" moving averages are lagging indicatos that tell you what has been happening. they tell you nothing about what will happen, UNLESS they are signaling the start of a trend...