but before quoting your ONLY educational literature that you seem to own, you better read more carefully:
Hull was referring to deep-out-of-the-money options. In that light his statement makes complete sense, as you pick up only small premiums however, as I already mentioned, extreme outcomes are statistically not correctly reflected in most distributions, meaning that especially the premiums of out-of-the-money options ought to be higher than they are.
BTW, should you know a bit more about Hull than just what whas written about him in Market Wizards (what makes this book so popular here at ET, is it because its the No. 1 book for daydreamers?) you should know that Hull made a huge chunk of his money, selling options and earning premiums. Its not a suckers game, believe me.
Hull was referring to deep-out-of-the-money options. In that light his statement makes complete sense, as you pick up only small premiums however, as I already mentioned, extreme outcomes are statistically not correctly reflected in most distributions, meaning that especially the premiums of out-of-the-money options ought to be higher than they are.
BTW, should you know a bit more about Hull than just what whas written about him in Market Wizards (what makes this book so popular here at ET, is it because its the No. 1 book for daydreamers?) you should know that Hull made a huge chunk of his money, selling options and earning premiums. Its not a suckers game, believe me.
Quote from heilbronner:
Blair Hull: "I was consistently making money, but that kind of strategy - selling deep out of the money options - only leads to consistent profits until a catastrophe arises."
