Quote from dummy-variable:
well there's the contradiction of this approach. maybe the only way i can explain or justify what i'm calling "converting negative expectancy into positive expectancy" is really a betting scheme. it may be some version of an anti-martingale which pyramids winning bets. the method then appears as a means of leveraging winners while balancing risk.
You might be right in the comparison there, since I don't believe in those either. Everytime you 'leverage a winner' you have an opinion about what will happen
next compared to the situation
now. Your previous position has no relevance to that.
Suppose you use two different accounts then, in one account you sold the straddle. After a week you decide to buy a butterfly in the other account, and close the straddle in the first account. It's equivalent of course.
The owners of both accounts should ask at any time why this action was taken, without knowledge of the other account.
the negative expectancy limit is inescapable. to me disputing this is like denying that the house has an edge in a casino.
I agree, I'm not disputing that.
yet in both the markets and in casinos there are indisputably a few long term winners. are they merely on a long term lucky streak (the statistical equivalent of someone who guesses heads 10 times in a row and wins) or are they skilled bettors or is it some other x factor?
This is tricky. I think winners are skilled bettors, adjusting their risk when they know their chances are changing. This cannot be done in roulette but it can be done in finite cardgames, like blackjack. Knowing your odds in the future and adjusting accordingly will give you positive expectancy.
No question about that.
Adjusting your position because you have some indication about the future, approaching the market with tools to determine the odds and preposition yourself to profit from it is maybe possible, maybe not. That's not what I'm questioning.
But your decision to convert to another position should only be based on that, not on what you own already (because of previous assumptions about the future).
I consider that approach about the same as 'averaging down' or 'not taking my losses yet' or, yes, 'leveraging winners', now you mention it.
Ursa..