Not a bad way to swing with options

Many people make money simply on noise (Overreactions that have no fundamental significance) and options seem to be very good at noise exaggeration.
It is an illusion to think you can beat random noise. You need something that is non random to make money.
 
It is an illusion to think you can beat random noise.
I didn't mean random in a pure meaning. Look what's happening around news/tweets ... It's not random, but it's still noise. So in the video, they are fading multiple day sell off on news/rumors. It is not unusual to see the stock pop 5-10% as short covering rally/squeeze or value buying. So, imho, the set up is valid, but how do you play it is the question.
They are using 10% OTM options which seems to me are too far away. Their "hedging" isn't making sense to me either. It sounds like they are day trading the underlying on the short side and possibly keep it overnight to protect puts and scalp to offset time decay. Just not coherent to me (Obviously this is a free video so I don't expect them to share everything).

I think the main difference between what I was trying to do and them is that it sounds to me that they do not mind being assigned on the puts at those prices ... They will either make money on the pop or they will be long the stock at a long term support levels. Given that they received credit, they have nothing to loose.

I personally don't like the idea of selling puts with the idea of getting assigned. It sounds like "bad" trading even though it must have been a great strategy for the past ten years.
 
I don't know, if I trade directionally, I don't think I trade against MM ... They just pair me up with some other idiot(or hedger) and take their cut no matter what.

I don't get it, let's assume there are people who have an edge doing short term (up to 3 months) directional trading ... Why can't they use options to help them better structure/execute their strategy? Many people make money simply on noise (Overreactions that have no fundamental significance) and options seem to be very good at noise exaggeration.

Therein lies your leap of faith. Utilize B to benefit from A.
First, prove to me you can do A, before wasting my time talking about B.
 
He figured a way to beat roulette and did it.
I may be mistaken but for some reason I remember from reading the book a while back that they were playing tables which were not perfectly set up, so they were able exploit that. Like for example, the table had a slight tilt (sometimes even intentional).
 
I may be mistaken but for some reason I remember from reading the book a while back that they were playing tables which were not perfectly set up, so they were able exploit that. Like for example, the table had a slight tilt (sometimes even intentional).
Simple physics/mechanical system and a hidden computer for computation:
Shannon and Thorpe's exploits in Las Vegas have now been inked into the legends of roulette.

Imagine carving up a roulette wheel into eight zones. By 1961, Thorp and Shannon reckoned they had a system that could accurately predict which of those zones would end up with the roulette ball. Shannon made sure Thorp was sworn to absolute secrecy.

The roulette busting computer was the size of a pack of cigarettes, and manipulated by Thorp’s and Shannon’s big toes with micro-switches in their shoes.

One switch booted up the computer and the other timed the wheel and the ball. Once the wheel speed was measured, the computer sent a musical scale whose eight tones mapped the 8 quadrants passing a reference point. Both men heard the music via a small earphone in one ear.
 
Back
Top