Karen the Supertrader - TastyTrade Hybrid Experiment

Status
Not open for further replies.
DTB2 said:
Is there a link to these discussions?
More...

Post #9 for the lazy, and you have to be approved by the mods first to read the older messages...

-------------------------------

The numbers are a bit confusing.

The mondovisione link says the fund has 175 m NAV, present tense. The Youtube video of TT with the 2 ladies discussing her back in Aug 2014 mentions 300 million. Did the 300 melted down to 175?

https://www.tastytrade.com/tt/shows...episodes/trading-like-karen-in-spy-08-21-2014

http://m.mondovisione.com/media-and...hemed-to-collect-extra-fees-from-hedge-funds/
 
Last edited:
so, again, so we can all enjoy the magic, what is your twitter handle?


tradexxx0001 said:
@conduit: yes and with threads so i can browse what happened before and before. No deletions. A new tweet thread reply is marked with continuation mark to make sure that is a thread with history. Realtime asap screenshots from the broker screen. Noone else does it but it's ok, i have it as a diary and reference. I don't share, you can try pattern-find me.

@Amalgam
:) classic.. who "we"? The 90% of losing traders? Ok then.

That's why i come here only to solve technical stuff. But couldn't resist to unpuzzle that lady. And it's a great example how not only the retail herd, but also hedge funds are clueless how to profit from markets. They get tricked by a lady propped on some channel and once she gains the initial trust, she goes wicked:))

>>enjoy Karen, who found magic in fixed income just like other failed traders who have no morale.<<

or

Stop following, start trading.
More...
 
I take a different angle and embrace the "dumber" players, especially in the futures and options markets. Without their enthusiastic support, the markets would become ultra competitive and possibly much less efficient (lower volume and wider bid/ask spreads). Trading profit margin, if there were any, would be razor thin. It is human nature to be "dumb" because most of us (myself included) are greedy and fearful. Besides, most "dumb" players don't even know that they play the game indirectly. These are the passive investors who buy mutual funds, hedge funds or entrust their money with financial gurus or advisers.

Nonetheless, I often console my damaged self-esteem with these quotations:-

"Courage is not the absence of fear."
"Prudence is not the absence of greed."
 
For anyone who comes here to gloat, the schadenfraude thread is that way.>>>>

Honestly, we don't give a fuck how smart you are or that you told us so. This thread is a scientific (if there is such a thing on Et) discussion of a certain strategy. We are aware of its risk and rewards, so you don't have to tell us. What we want to understand is that how that strategy works under certain market condition (stress test if you wish), and why would she suffer a loss when market volatility was much higher before and after and the system just worked fine.

Assuming she didn't lie about 2008 (VIX at 90), I figured if she survived that year with let's say a relative small loss, it has to be a bigger volatility period to take her down. Yet for some reason she gets a 40% or so DD in 2014 when volatility is hardly above 30...

Maybe she overused the portfolio margin or deviated in some other ways from the core strategy. But as the Yahoo boys showed, 2014 should have been an average 10-15% return year for her strategy. Time will tell what really happened...
 
Who is "we"? You speak the whole time of we...
Pekelo said:
For anyone who comes here to gloat, the schadenfraude thread is that way.>>>>

Honestly, we don't give a fuck how smart you are or that you told us so. This thread is a scientific (if there is such a thing on Et) discussion of a certain strategy. We are aware of its risk and rewards, so you don't have to tell us. What we want to understand is that how that strategy works under certain market condition (stress test if you wish), and why would she suffer a loss when market volatility was much higher before and after and the system just worked fine.

Assuming she didn't lie about 2008 (VIX at 90), I figured if she survived that year with let's say a relative small loss, it has to be a bigger volatility period to take her down. Yet for some reason she gets a 40% or so DD in 2014 when volatility is hardly above 30...

Maybe she overused the portfolio margin or deviated in some other ways from the core strategy. But as the Yahoo boys showed, 2014 should have been an average 10-15% return year for her strategy. Time will tell what really happened...
More...
 
  • Like
Reactions: d08
Pekelo said:
For anyone who comes here to gloat, the schadenfraude thread is that way.>>>>

Honestly, we don't give a fuck how smart you are or that you told us so. This thread is a scientific (if there is such a thing on Et) discussion of a certain strategy. We are aware of its risk and rewards, so you don't have to tell us. What we want to understand is that how that strategy works under certain market condition (stress test if you wish), and why would she suffer a loss when market volatility was much higher before and after and the system just worked fine.

Assuming she didn't lie about 2008 (VIX at 90), I figured if she survived that year with let's say a relative small loss, it has to be a bigger volatility period to take her down. Yet for some reason she gets a 40% or so DD in 2014 when volatility is hardly above 30...

Maybe she overused the portfolio margin or deviated in some other ways from the core strategy. But as the Yahoo boys showed, 2014 should have been an average 10-15% return year for her strategy. Time will tell what really happened...
More...
Agreed! All I'm doing is doing a little testing. No harm here. Everybody is welcome to follow along until I blow everything up.

Bobby
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top