Good lord, 99% of quants couldn't trade their way out of a paper bag. Most would shit their pants trading, and the ones that wouldn't are the ones you really need to be horrified of. The model doesn't make you money, it's a tool, and with options the best you get is Black+Decker. I used to joke about how much time we spent defining things to the 4th decimal when we have no clue to where other variables should be by large integers. I'm freakishly quantitative for a trader, but I'd attribute about $0 of my net worth to that knowledge.
I'll always take a good experienced risk focused trader, over the best of quants. The later are a dime a dozen anyway. Want one with 2 PhD's out of the Ivies... always had a stack of resumes for those. My favorite was when Russia fell and all these guys could explain how to build a nuclear missile guidance system that could pinpoint a flies ass from 3,000 miles away but none could build a damn basic futures model correctly because they learned everything about options reading equity options and f'd up the interest rate function 100% of the time!
...and of course options are a zero sum game. With that said, they are not.
and @jacobson example raised my eyebrow at first with the buy the put comment. Then I assumed he was just expressing a position where the market maker was seeking full (99.9% risk neutrality). Yes it's not realistic instantaneously and you would just take in your delta and work your way out of the other risks.
@carrer - Dividends themselves are a zero sum event, 99.99999999% of the population just thinks otherwise. The average person who thinks themselves financially astute has no idea how far they are away from being so... the worst of them all are economists!!