Search results

Got it - still trying to understand how this all works though - so a trader signs an agreement with one of RAPA's owners.... (1) does the trader have a relationship with RAPA? (2) And what is the nature of the trader's relationship with Gleneagle? A brokerage customer, or something else...

Really appreciate your response. As I was writing my post to you, I realized that I'm at a complete loss to come up with a word to characterize the relationship between you and the trader. I think it's important for everyone to know what this relationship is. And a follow up - what's the...

Okay.... so two questions come to mind, (1) what is your relationship with the trader? (for example is a trader your 'customer')? Because fiduciary duty is very much dependent on the type of relationship. (2) I'm not familiar with the sec reg in Australia - so please excuse if this is a...

It doesn't.

Fair enough... so what do you believe to be your fiduciary duties to traders who give you access to their accounts?

I don't want your code. I want you to take the standard BS formula, from wikipedia, and highlight the part that you think is 'ito-lemma' that you eliminated. That's it. No private information you need to give up. You can't do that because ito's lemma is part of the derivation, not the...

He didn't actually say that he derived BS without ito's lemma, which is obviously possible (though obviously, doubtful that he can). He said he 'eliminated' it from the formula (or, 'automaton' as he called it in another thread). The fact that he tried to post some code showed that he meant...

You made it that when you made your nonsense claim about eliminating Ito's lemma. You said you dont use options data, only BS - so the fact that you clearly don't know what BS is is very relevant. Anyway, I think everyone now see you for what you are - a charlatan.

Oh I see... the fact that you've been shown to be making false claims of your knowledge of options has no bearing on a thread where you give 'facts' on the same subject ? You are a shameless charlatant. Shameless. Put up to back up your claims, or shut up

Ask our genius here how it's used - he won't answer because he doesn't know. Otherwise he wouldn't make the kind of ridiculous claim he's been making. I'll be happy to offer a layman's explaination tomorrow (it will underwhelm you). But let's give this guy a chance to answer with his silence.

For the record, I'm not calling his code garbage. He didn't post anything beyond a generic declaration. The garbage refers to his childish attempt at 'math'

Dude, you have no ip, because you don't even have a clue where ito's lemma is used in the bs formula. Don't show us how to 'eliminate' it, just where it is used in the bs formula. That doesn't give away anything, does it? In English, please, or latex. Cause we don't all speak German. Come...

(1) you gave a function declaration with no body except comments in German. You've shown nothing, certainly not math. (2) you've demonstrated you have zero clue what ito's lemma is. It's used in the derivation of bs, not in the bs forumula itself. If disagree, show us which part of the standard...

Can you show us how you've made ito's lemma (why did you put a dash?) unnecessary? Show us the math please. I (and sle and others know) the standard derivation well enough, so impress us with your brilliance. Let the math speak, please.

Hummm... the more details he adds, the more I'm swinging from the "why can't he be the lucky mouse" side to "I think he made 500k in simulations".

Your PNL peaked early and then decayed pretty quick over the next few months. Many many others have tried basically the same idea. Some failed immediately. Others experienced what you did. The luck part is that its not possible to pick which of the two states you end up in. I believe...

His pnl decay is very typical of results from survivorship bias. Note to the guy who did this: survivorship bias in this setting isn't about how many trades you did, but all the others who tried the same thing, failed, and never wrote a blog post about it. Anyway, I'm inclined to believe he...

Wow, I'm completely speechless... You really really ought to crack open an options book. I'll leave to others more tolerant of idiocy to explain why you don't understand anything about options. But I will point out that BS is a pricing model, not an automaton. Inventing your own terminology...

I'm going to bet that you don't know what implied vol is. Why else would you compare it to 'automation'. Even by ET standard, your ignorance is profound.

Oh crap, I totally missed where you claim using historical vol is acceptable, even when others advised you that it is stupid. Another ET crazy person, eh? No wonder your post made absolutely no sense.