Those communists over at Optionetics tried to ban me to shut me up. Can you believe that shit? I challenge one of their writers and they try to shut me up by banning me. Well, it ain't going to work, the truth will be told. Never underestimate morons. They will usually prove they are much more stupid then you give them credit for. LOL.
Buying/Selling Options
- Thread starter pcgeek86
- Start date
gotta tote that party line mav
This quote from Kramer says a lot:
"Alex is more than capable of handling and winning this one himself. I learned a long time ago the old adage....
âNever get into a fight with a dolt. They will drag you down to their level and beat the heck out of you with experienceâ.
You were nothing but nice to those guys and they throw the Ad Hominem at you?
You are a "dolt" and you will beat them with your "experience?" WTF? And Alex already AGREED they were the same, except for some possible differences "at the limit". Does SK even read? SK is a "professional" options "educator?" LMAO
I mean, I could trade the synthetic equivelent in my stock system and I would use less margin. But I don't because I feel my automated systems and scanners work better, and much easier, with the stock. So they could just say something like "Yes, we agree that 2 + 3 = 4 + 1. But we like the collar method because..."?
I hate to say it, but it sounds more and more like oilers protecting their turf.
Best.
So this where we are at as I see it:
WE can strip away the short call leg of both strategies because is is the SAME call.
That leaves us with the natural long call verses the synthetic as the "REAL" comparison.
So the only difference here is that we pay the cost of carry up front when we buy the natural, whereas the cost carry is "pay as you go" for the synthetic.
So if the underlying takes a big hit early in the life of the strategy, we cop the additional loss of the cost of carry on the natural. However, as this is a black swan type event, the probability of this is quite low. Under "normal" circumstances, this is just not a factor.
Therefore in practice, 99.9% of the time, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE; and hardly worth arguing about anyway.
So if P.A. turned $3.57 into 5 mill in 3 months (or whatever the claim is), then this could certainly have been achieved with verticals as well.
Reality - the retail trader could trade either equally, but with a whole lot less margin in the case of the vertical.
I know which way I will continue to go
WE can strip away the short call leg of both strategies because is is the SAME call.
That leaves us with the natural long call verses the synthetic as the "REAL" comparison.
So the only difference here is that we pay the cost of carry up front when we buy the natural, whereas the cost carry is "pay as you go" for the synthetic.
So if the underlying takes a big hit early in the life of the strategy, we cop the additional loss of the cost of carry on the natural. However, as this is a black swan type event, the probability of this is quite low. Under "normal" circumstances, this is just not a factor.
Therefore in practice, 99.9% of the time, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE; and hardly worth arguing about anyway.
So if P.A. turned $3.57 into 5 mill in 3 months (or whatever the claim is), then this could certainly have been achieved with verticals as well.
Reality - the retail trader could trade either equally, but with a whole lot less margin in the case of the vertical.
I know which way I will continue to go
A reasonable assessment imho.Quote from wayneL:
So this where we are at as I see it:
WE can strip away the short call leg of both strategies because is is the SAME call.
That leaves us with the natural long call verses the synthetic as the "REAL" comparison.
So the only difference here is that we pay the cost of carry up front when we buy the natural, whereas the cost carry is "pay as you go" for the synthetic.
So if the underlying takes a big hit early in the life of the strategy, we cop the additional loss of the cost of carry on the natural. However, as this is a black swan type event, the probability of this is quite low. Under "normal" circumstances, this is just not a factor.
Therefore in practice, 99.9% of the time, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE; and hardly worth arguing about anyway.
So if P.A. turned $3.57 into 5 mill in 3 months (or whatever the claim is), then this could certainly have been achieved with verticals as well.
Reality - the retail trader could trade either equally, but with a whole lot less margin in the case of the vertical.
I know which way I will continue to go
I think the biggest problem over *there* is that they don't always know who they are talking to. They recruit ex MMs and experienced op guys to teach these seminars, but they forget that many out there have just as much experience and could have a very solid high level math background (and most of *them* don't).
And they also feel the need to "sound bite" and couch these run-of-the-mill op strats in consumer-friendly terms like "Lazy Collar" or I used to get fliers from them extolling the benefits of Fontanills' "Vacation Trade" (I think it was just a BPS).
Unfortunately there is no one size fits all option strategy and I would suspect that, just like other trading, 98% of those expensive seminar attendees will never get back even the cost of attending.
Good trading to all.
I should say even though I am cheering "our" ET guys Mav and the late great riskarb, in "The Great Options Battle", I actually do like the Optionetics site and a lot of the writers.
There is some good info there and many good traders. I encourage anyone interested in trading options to check out the site. Since they are an ET sponsor: http://www.optionetics.com/
And as long as the info is free, I'm all for it. I just don't like the idea of ANY (what I consider, anyway) overpriced training.
Just get a couple books (Larry Mac/Natenberg/etc), a good option risk grapher (Hoadley) and some option quote chains, and sit down for a few days and crank this stuff out. Then come here or go to Optionetics and ask questions.
You'll be glad you did!
Regards to all, including the Optionetics guys!
Happy New Year! W.
There is some good info there and many good traders. I encourage anyone interested in trading options to check out the site. Since they are an ET sponsor: http://www.optionetics.com/
And as long as the info is free, I'm all for it. I just don't like the idea of ANY (what I consider, anyway) overpriced training.
Just get a couple books (Larry Mac/Natenberg/etc), a good option risk grapher (Hoadley) and some option quote chains, and sit down for a few days and crank this stuff out. Then come here or go to Optionetics and ask questions.
You'll be glad you did!
Regards to all, including the Optionetics guys!
Happy New Year! W.
Quote from Wayne Gibbous:
I should say even though I am cheering "our" ET guys Mav and the late great riskarb, in "The Great Options Battle", I actually do like the Optionetics site and a lot of the writers.
There is some good info there and many good traders. I encourage anyone interested in trading options to check out the site. Since they are an ET sponsor: http://www.optionetics.com/
And as long as the info is free, I'm all for it. I just don't like the idea of ANY (what I consider, anyway) overpriced training.
Just get a couple books (Larry Mac/Natenberg/etc), a good option risk grapher (Hoadley) and some option quote chains, and sit down for a few days and crank this stuff out. Then come here or go to Optionetics and ask questions.
You'll be glad you did!
Regards to all, including the Optionetics guys!
Happy New Year! W.
That's very conciliatory of you Wayne.
Judging by the latest couple of comments over there, it is unlikely to be reciprocated. lol
However, my observation is that better answers come from those without any particular commercial agenda. That makes a forum such as this far better than the other place, where sycophancy is both demanded and adhered to.