Search results

Blackjack ain't Roulette. Ask him to write a model for the later, he'd laugh in your face.

Vol came in.

Yep, might as well start a thread, "How to beat the casino at Roulette."

I don't mean to be impolite, but I disagree with everything you said. It is much easier to predict long term volatility than it is to predict short term volatility, and I have seen countless times short term options vol explode without the back end even blinking (especially in futures). In...

No idea, it's not how I think. But as a rule of thumb. If you are exiting your winners for 10% gains you better exit your losers at less than a 10% loss.

For a boutique firm, as a member of the NYMEX and COMEX, but that will be 3 decades ago come this December.

The opposite. Vol might moves less but Vega is larger, therefore options far from expry are more sensitive to vega. And theta and gamma are bedfellows. Not theta and vol, nor theta and delta. Heck, I was trained to never even think of Delta as a risk.

Solution #2. Keep things smooth.

1- Don't understand the question as the wording is a bit confusing. 2- Underlying and Future mean the same thing. Unless it was equities where underlying was the individual equity. I suggest you read Taleb Dynamic Hedging. Never read it myself, but thumbed through it and it was well written...

I always immediately hedged delta with the underlying, unless there was an option I could hedge delta with, which usually is not the case, then looked for other options to hedge out the residual risks. The closer to the strike traded (inter or intra month) the better. It might sound weird, but...

"fall off a cliff a 100 times and then you will recognise a cliff." I don't think you get a second chance on that one. I have to say, your posts are funny. Not sure if it's intentional, but nonetheless they are funny.

Me. What separates a great trader from the Hoi-Polloi is one knows how to get out of their losses and immediately forget about the fact they lost.

Sure, but I sold them where I knew I could spread into something else against them for cheaper. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Thank you. I was shaking my head in disbelief. Everything else you said I am in agreement with, and somewhere in one of the posts said. Efficiently priced, shouldn't win or lose (theoretically). Your last comment on the 150% puts is not how I see anyone wan to trade, it is always either...

At one time or another, all of the above, although clients were only large institutions.

You suffer from what everyone suffers, once you get an idea in your head you refuse to remove it. I know more about options than I know about anything else in the world. I refuse to trade them for my own personal account. What more can I tell you, if that is not telling you everything.

I meant to add. If you are capital restricted and want to get long, buying deep in the money options with no extrinsic value, theoretically would be a decent idea. The problem is in the real world you will pay a vig to get in, and since you don't have the capital to take exercise an even bigger...

The fact you are trying to truly understand makes it pleasant to help. Yes you will lose out on the leverage, but you pay for that leverage in theta(decay). I'm a broken record. You get nothing for free. Whatever benefit an option gives you comes at an EQUAL cost. Same with selling them, which I...

Assuming a lot of time hasn't passed, and volatility wasn't exorbitantly high when you purchased it and afterwards came in considerably, the answer to that is obviously yes. I don't understand the intent of the question. The question would still be, were you better off just buying 70% of the...

If there is opportunity in the trend it is in the trend, not the option. If you think you can see the trend AND time it, well as they say on Wall St. Mazel Tov!