You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sharing+Discuss Option Trades/Strategies
- Thread starter Put_Master
- Start date
I'd still like to know what accurate IV number, atticus and xflat would use to replace robt's inacurate mystery figure.
Seems pretty rude to call his average IV figure innacurate, but refuse to state the number they believe is more accurate.
How can they continue to call the probability calculation accurate, while allowing for individual investors to select different subjective numbers for the calculation?
I've been told robt's 73% figure is inacurate, because of his use of a mystery IV figure. And I agree its probably inacurate. But those same individuals refuse to state what IV figure they'd replace it with.
They seem to be saying the results are accurate. Just not the numbers used in the equation to achieve those results.
Huh?
Clearly they are going to continue refusing to share their accurate chosen IV number used in the equation, while calling robt's mystery figure inacurate. Hence I see no point in beating a dead horse. I've made my point, and they've made theirs.
My interpretation of the chances for my CB investment being profitable, continue to be based my numerous fluid and subjective variables. Nothing is written in stone.
I'm happy to use as many subjective tools as I can . Even the subjective probability of a profit calculation.
Putz Master
Seems pretty rude to call his average IV figure innacurate, but refuse to state the number they believe is more accurate.
How can they continue to call the probability calculation accurate, while allowing for individual investors to select different subjective numbers for the calculation?
I've been told robt's 73% figure is inacurate, because of his use of a mystery IV figure. And I agree its probably inacurate. But those same individuals refuse to state what IV figure they'd replace it with.
They seem to be saying the results are accurate. Just not the numbers used in the equation to achieve those results.
Huh?
Clearly they are going to continue refusing to share their accurate chosen IV number used in the equation, while calling robt's mystery figure inacurate. Hence I see no point in beating a dead horse. I've made my point, and they've made theirs.
My interpretation of the chances for my CB investment being profitable, continue to be based my numerous fluid and subjective variables. Nothing is written in stone.
I'm happy to use as many subjective tools as I can . Even the subjective probability of a profit calculation.
Putz Master
Quote from xflat2186:
I suggest you learn how to calculate probabilities, there are no subjective variables.
I have no particular interest in your trade other than making sure anyone who happens along this thread is not fooled into thinking that your subjective guesses in things such as trends or t/a has any bearing on the calculation of probabilities.
Which part was hard for you to understand?
Quote from Put_Master:
I'd still like to know what accurate IV number, atticus and xflat would use to replace robt's inacurate mystery figure.
Seems pretty rude to call his average IV figure innacurate, but refuse to state the number they believe is more accurate.
How can they continue to call the probability calculation accurate, while allowing for individual investors to select different subjective numbers for the calculation?
I've been told robt's 73% figure is inacurate, because of his use of a mystery IV figure. And I agree its probably inacurate. But those same individuals refuse to state what IV figure they'd replace it with.
They seem to be saying the results are accurate. Just not the numbers used in the equation to achieve those results.
Huh?
Clearly they are going to continue refusing to share their accurate chosen IV number used in the equation, while calling robt's mystery figure inacurate. Hence I see no point in beating a dead horse. I've made my point, and they've made theirs.
My interpretation of the chances for my CB investment being profitable, continue to be based my numerous fluid and subjective variables. Nothing is written in stone.
I'm happy to use as many subjective tools as I can . Even the subjective probability of a profit calculation.
Putz Master
Robert was using historical-vol to arrive at a probability. He's using a 100-day lookback figure. HE'S NOT USING IV, ugh.
I am using Bjerksund and the atm straddle IV to arrive at touch and expiration probability on Chubb. You have roughly a 20% chance of losing the $0.75 premium at July expiration [at $33.50]. Your R/R was 5.6:1 when you initiated the spread, therefore it's not a bet I would have made, as the touch probability at 33.50 on July expiration exceeds the payout-ratio. It's moot, as I won't consider vanilla positions at >1:1.
Your spread is profitable, which is proof that it's better to be lucky than smart. God knows there were countless other positions more profitable, but feel free to keep on with these absurd vertical payoffs.
Quote from RobtF:
PM, hoping to be constructive. I'm not crazy about this trade on it's own terms. I see a .73 p/p based on 100 day hv.; less using a longer history and with a relatively modest .75 credit for a 5 point spread with 46 days to expiry I'd pass on this credit spread. That's just my opinion.
Regards, RobtF
<<< I have no particular interest in your trade other than making sure anyone who happens along this thread is not fooled into thinking that your subjective guesses in things such as trends or t/a has any bearing on the calculation of probabilities.
Which part was hard for you to understand? >>>
That's a nice dodge and twist, and attempt to distract from the issue being discussed,... implying that I think tech analysis and trends have some bearing on results of the probability calculation.
I'm only asking what number you would use to replace the mystery "average IV" used, to arrive at a different % answer than his 73%, which you stated was inaccurate.
I agree that its probably inaccurate. I just want to know your more accurate %.
If you prefer not to share it, that's fine. Just say so and I'll stop asking.
Putz Master
Which part was hard for you to understand? >>>
That's a nice dodge and twist, and attempt to distract from the issue being discussed,... implying that I think tech analysis and trends have some bearing on results of the probability calculation.
I'm only asking what number you would use to replace the mystery "average IV" used, to arrive at a different % answer than his 73%, which you stated was inaccurate.
I agree that its probably inaccurate. I just want to know your more accurate %.
If you prefer not to share it, that's fine. Just say so and I'll stop asking.
Putz Master
Quote from RobtF:
Probaility of profit is 73% using average IV and Black-Scholes option pricing model.
Atticus, how can you say he's not using IV, when he stated above that he's using "average IV"?
He also discussed HV. But those are different criteria.
In addition, his 73% probability of a profit differs from yours at 80%.
Can they both be accurate?
Putz Master
Quote from Put_Master:
Atticus, how can you say he's not using IV, when he stated above that he's using "average IV"?
He also discussed HV. But those are different criteria.
In addition, his 73% probability of a profit differs from yours at 80%.
Can they both be accurate?
Putz Master
We're using different end-points. His PoP is different that the 1:1 risk determination. Here is the post I've referenced:
Quote from RobtF:
PM, hoping to be constructive. I'm not crazy about this trade on it's own terms. I see a .73 p/p based on 100 day hv.; less using a longer history and with a relatively modest .75 credit for a 5 point spread with 46 days to expiry I'd pass on this credit spread. That's just my opinion.
Regards, RobtF
I know you're going to state there is "variability" but that's just your nonsensical senile ramblings.
<<< We're using different end-points. PoP is different that the 1:1 risk determination. >>>
Thank you for clarifying that you feel his .73 p/p,using 100 day HV and average IV, is an inaccurate result and analysis, of the %chance of the CB trade being profitable.
While I certainly prefer your 80% chance over his 73%, given that you may both be using different formulas and/or numbers for your calculations, I''m not sure how accurate either "subjective" result is.
Putz Master
Thank you for clarifying that you feel his .73 p/p,using 100 day HV and average IV, is an inaccurate result and analysis, of the %chance of the CB trade being profitable.
While I certainly prefer your 80% chance over his 73%, given that you may both be using different formulas and/or numbers for your calculations, I''m not sure how accurate either "subjective" result is.
Putz Master
Quote from Put_Master:
<<< I have no particular interest in your trade other than making sure anyone who happens along this thread is not fooled into thinking that your subjective guesses in things such as trends or t/a has any bearing on the calculation of probabilities.
Which part was hard for you to understand? >>>
That's a nice dodge and twist, and attempt to distract from the issue being discussed,... implying that I think tech analysis and trends have some bearing on results of the probability calculation.
I'm only asking what number you would use to replace the mystery "average IV" used, to arrive at a different % answer than his 73%, which you stated was inaccurate.
I agree that its probably inaccurate. I just want to know your more accurate %.
If you prefer not to share it, that's fine. Just say so and I'll stop asking.
Putz Master
All that needs to be noted is what you posted on the previous page to see who is lying and twisting...
"In terms of evaluating "probability of profit", I think one should also consider the downside tech support CB has demonstrated in the $35 area,... per the 1 year chart below.
You need to go back 5 years to see the last time CB tested the $35 area.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CB&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=b&c=
Putz Master"
You clearly said you believe those things I am not "implying" it you posted it. I just showed more of your double talk and wrong info.
Quote from Put_Master:
<<< We're using different end-points. PoP is different that the 1:1 risk determination. >>>
Thank you for clarifying that you feel his .73 p/p,using 100 day HV and average IV, is an inaccurate result and analysis, of the %chance of the CB trade being profitable.
While I certainly prefer your 80% chance over his 73%, given that you may both be using different formulas and/or numbers for your calculations, I''m not sure how accurate either "subjective" result is.
Putz Master
This is why you're such an asshole. I never stated he was inaccurate. I stated we're using different end-points. My calculation uses a touch of $33.50 at expiration.