> I thought that most people trading options say that selling options for premium is the only way to go and that buying puts and calls only leads to losses in the long run?
It all comes down to whether you have an edge or not. Since (unlike buying stocks, for example) options is a "zero sum game". Options are priced such that those with a strike price far from the current stock price (and thus a low probability that they will gain intrinsic value before they expire) are cheap. Those with a strike price closer to the current stock price are priced higher.
You can think of it like this. A far out-of-the money option might have only a 1 in 10 chance of becoming in-the-money. But in that 1 in 10 times when it does, you might make (if you bought the option), or lose (if you sold the option) 10 times the original cost of the option. An option closer to the strike price might have a 1 in 3 chance of becoming in-the-money. But since it costs more originally, you might make (if you bought the option), or lose (if you sold the option) 3 times the original cost of the option. These values are for illustration only. Nonetheless, over the long term, if you buy (or sell) options randomly, you should come out approximately even, before subtracting commissions and other fees.
Someone who has an edge (knows with better than chance probability what the market is going to do) can profit from either buying or selling options. Someone without an edge would in theory come out even, but in practice they usually do far worse because of psychological issues (panicking and not closing positions optimally) and commissions/fees. Plus there is so much leverage possible with options, it is easy to blow up an account quickly. Whereas with stocks, there is a natural upward bias. So someone without an edge who buys stocks at random comes out ahead in the long run. I think it was Peter Lynch who said that (for the retail trader without an edge) buying stocks is a way to get rich slowly, while trading options is a way get poor quickly.
