Our 400,000 Trade Test Proves Using Stops Is Not Very Bright

[botpro]

A stop on options? Please!

Suppose you sell your put on a $100 stock for $3. Expiration in 90 days.

A week later, some “unexpected” event makes the price drop to 50 at the open. Where was your stop again?

That's exactly what I wanted to show destriero. It only supports my pov.

Where you completely fail in your logic, is that you did not sell that put to a computer. You sold it to a human being, as any MM will adjust price and vols either manually or automatically.
You can place an order to cover your put for $5 or whatever stupid price you think it is worth, but the owner of that put will make sure you feel the pain and only transact with you at their price. And that is when you will blow up, despite your “superior intellectual capabilities”, because you run tests on simulated data lol

LOL!

 

[samuel11]

That's excatly what I wanted show distriero. It only supports my pov.

Wow, you are a genius! Please don’t change a thing

 

[dartmus]

The statistically based algorithm wouldn't know or even care about the pattern or chart interval. It's simply a predator (if designed properly) that estimates shifts in supply and demand at advantageous price points. A good discretionary trader can visually do this, but his execution better be quick

When u sample the data what is the size of the smallest historical period sampled?

 

[destriero]

Wow! The bet was for $1000. I never expected $10,000. So you baited me ---you must be proud of yourself --- You just don't want to pay.

The first wager was for $1,000, numbnuts. You failed to provide the $-risk. A couple of hours later you posted the screenshot for the $93 figure. I missed it and baited you with the $10,000 stating that you had not posted the dollar-risk figure on the digital.

I had missed your post but it was irrelevant. Refusing to provide proof, as you had by simply posting 23.25/100.00, forced you to lose the $1,000 wager. I couldn't get you to provide the screenshot so I upped it to $10,000. Make it $1,000,000,000,000,000,000.00. It's moot. You're not allowed (as you've stated) "unlimited time" to proof your wager. Two hours? Sorry!

 

[botpro]

If you don’t like it, don’t read it!

You are getting on my nerves with your secrecy, either play with open hands like a man, or just pi*s off!
Because you are not contributing anything to this discussion, but disturbing it.

 

[samuel11]

You are getting on my nerves with your secrecy, either play with open hands like a man, or just pi*s off!
Because you are not contributing anything to this discussion, but disturbing it.

 

[destriero]

The idea that a 50% loss on an option/position, is an ideal SL is ridiculous. It implies that a nearly 50% loss is optimal in terms of price-recovery on a valid-sample. The vast majority of long calls or puts would be deeply OTM and/or a significant period of time would have elapsed (at a 50% loss). OTM delta, gamma -> delta-drift, loss to synthetic vol (opportunity loss expressed as time to exp), etc. I don't need to see your f*cked data to know you're woefully out of your depth.

 

[botpro]

The idea that a 50% loss on an option/position, is an ideal SL is ridiculous. It implies that a nearly 50% loss is optimal in terms of price-recovery on a valid-sample. The vast majority of long calls or puts would be deeply OTM and/or a significant period of time would have elapsed (at a 50% loss). OTM delta, gamma -> delta-drift, loss to synthetic vol (opportunity loss expressed as time to exp), etc. I don't need to see your f*cked data to know you're woefully out of your depth.

I think you lost the overview.
It just shows that a 50% SL very well makes sense with options, as was said here and when you questioned it. Q.E.D.

 

[botpro]

destriero, when do you intend to pay the money you owe surf?

 

[destriero]

I think you lost the overview.
It just shows that a 50% SL very well makes sense with options, as was said here and when you questioned it. Q.E.D.

So.... where's the proof?