Delusional or what?

[hutennis]

Non-directional DOES NOT MEAN that it's not PRICE SPECULATIVE.

It DEPENDS on price speculation.

No it is not.

Prices always move one way or another.
They can move but P&L can stay at 0.00
Correct assessment of correlation between prices thats where profit or loss is coming from.

[yak merchant]

Do you want me to read that straddle is called "non directional strategy"?
Is not it what I just said?

Jesus christ you dont' know when to quit while you are ahead. You really have no idea what you are talking about. I tried to be polite in previous discussions but you clearly just want to run your mouth like you are the all knowing buddha. So you took the part out about correlation in the last post? That makes it better?

[yak merchant]

No it is not.

Prices always move one way or another.
They can move but P&L can stay at 0.00
Correct assessment of correlation between prices thats where profit or loss is coming from.

Straddles have nothing to do with correlation. Correlated to what? itself?

[hutennis]

Straddles have nothing to do with correlation. Correlated to what? itself?

Wow! Another one!

Correlation between two legs in the trade (straddle)
You have two positions open.
Long side and short side.

Goota go. enjoy yourself.

[MonkeyF0cker]

No it is not.

Prices always move one way or another.
They can move but P&L can stay at 0.00
Correct assessment of correlation between prices thats where profit or loss is coming from.

Wow. You are dense.

How do you not realize that in order to make money that you have to properly SPECULATE the price movement (limited to a specific range)?

How do you also not realize that correlation is determined through past price movements and SPECULATED/PREDICTED? In other words, you're ADMITTING the market is INEFFICIENT.

[yak merchant]

Wow! Another one!

Correlation between two legs in the trade (straddle)
You have two positions open.
Long side and short side.

Wow is right. The correlation is f...ing 1 because a short straddle is tied to the same f...ing underlying. It's about volatility. No one said anything about a basket trade. Through this enlightening conversation I have now seen the light. I now no longer have to ever read or respond to any of your posts. I will now go ask for forgiveness for the 30 minutes of my life I've wasted.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Wow! Another one!

Shocking. Maybe it's because you're DEAD WRONG.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Correlation between two legs in the trade (straddle)

LOL. What the fukk does that even mean?

[kilmerAsHolliday]

I WORKED IN THE FUKKING FIELD, YOU GODDAMN MORON

comedy genius right there

[allin1]

So there is no "success" in beating markets at all.

then why did you recommend richard dennis and the traders interviewed by schwagger?

[byronbb]

This goes back to what I said about money won being more important than win percentage. It is better to hit 54% over 1000 plays than 60% over 200.

True if you are trying to make a living at this. If you are doing it as a hobby I think the 60% over 200 is better as it is much more enjoyable. I went 52% betting a lot of NBA games this year (ie breakeven) and it was infuriating.

[evo34]

Does discussion I'm having here hurt anyone's felling?.
Or is it completely irrelevant for someone who is trying to be successful in speculative markets?
No one can find anything useful in this topic at all, or learn anything from how it is developing?

Are you saying people here are completely brain dead?
I don't believe it.


But, mercilessly, I do have to stop.
It's getting late.

I'm dying to know one thing (and it's really the only thing I care to know about you): where are you from? If from the US, our education system is officially fukked.

[allin1]

Hutennis has been asked to start his own thread, and keep all his posts in that thread (even replies to other threads). Thanks to whoever suggested that earlier.

If he continues to troll, he will be banned. He was clearly trolling here.

so I wasn't that stupid after all with my interpretation of the definition of trolling.

Obviously, you know where you can shove your bans.

You have been suggested in a polite manner a solution to be welcomed in this sub forum and this is your response? It took you about 10 posts to get close to a ban again but earlier you criticized my friendly suggestion.

[subs]

[subs]

Good thread, hutennis droppin big boy knowledge

so r u going to step up and tell us which parts r big boy knowledge, thanks.

[thom321]

Monkey,

I don't get why you are arguing against hutennis. It is common knowledge that:
the earth is flat
no one has ever been to the moon
Elvis is still alive and
markets are efficient

[cyberbabble]

hutennis -

Thanks for answering my question.

If you are banned, I recommend consulting a lawyer. I am not one but I think you would clearly have grounds for legal action under the Americans with Disabilities Act. A business cannot discriminate against you simply because you are intellectually and psychologically challenged. In fact, I think the law requires the business to provide whatever special accommodations you need to allow you to continue posting.

Rest assured that you have many supporters here.

[baskets]

Whether the subject matter is politics, poker, sports betting or anything else, there is no bigger ASSBAG in this forum than MonkeyFocker.

He will only post to criticize as he's full of piss and vinegar.

Bitterness like that can only come from a lifetime of FAILING.

Nailed it immensely. I'm surprised the geek squad didn't full-on attack and assault you... with MF leading the way.

Ditto your takes on durito.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Geeks that fail. LOL.

Thanks for stopping by. Will be anxiously awaiting your (first, next) constructive post in the Think Tank.

[andywend]

Geeks that fail. LOL.

Thanks for stopping by. Will be anxiously awaiting your (first, next) constructive post in the Think Tank.

10,645 posts from you and I have yet to see a single constructive one yet.

You're totally useless.

[MonkeyF0cker]

10,645 posts from you and I have yet to see a single constructive one yet.

You're totally useless.

Totally, dude.

You two can leave now. This forum is for people with at least average intelligence.

Good talk.

[chunk]

Yo...What would you give, just generally speaking of course, to the home field advantage to a college football team?

[chunk]

While you're at it, what would you give to a college basketball team...generally speaking of course?

[subs]

Andy,

MF has posted a Kelly Sim in the last few months, and a C++ port for a tool Ganchrow made. and that is just recently.


ummm ur turn.

[subs]

sorry - NM

[hutennis]

Monkey,

I don't get why you are arguing against hutennis. It is common knowledge that:
the earth is flat
no one has ever been to the moon
Elvis is still alive and
markets are efficient

I don't understand why is it so hard to grasp.

Markets ARE efficient and markets ARE NOT efficient AT THE SAME TIME!

It depends on WHO YOU ARE!

If YOU can manipulate, corrupt or move markets with the size of YOUR bets - markets ARE NOT efficient.
If YOU can gather and analyse new information faster and better than 99% of the participants - markets ARE inefficient ENOUGH to be beat.

If YOU don't belong to the above categories - markets, as far as YOU are concerned, are as efficient as a coin flip.
There is nothing you can do with past information to predict future results.

Sorry if it ruins your dreams, but that's how it is.

That is not to say that efficient (meaning there is no predictive value in digging up the past) markets can not be dealt with because there are proven ways.
If you can keep your cost to a bare minimum and can control your losses to the point that you can break even, on balance, for as long as it takes, then rare but guaranteed large win will get you in a money. That's the only way.
If in addition, you can corrupt or manipulate - great!
If you can absorb new information better and faster than most - great!
This will add to your bottom line a lot but it is not must to have to be profitable.

None of the above has anything to do with analyzing the past, though.
Building backward looking models is still useless. Has been, is and will be.

Now you and cyberbabble can continue to provide comic relief. I hope you'll find it rewarding.

[thom321]

hutennis,

My current 11 year lucky streak in the markets have allowed me to be living my dream, so it is far from ruined. Crossing my fingers and hoping, wishing and praying (well, not so much) that it will continue. It also allows me extra time to browse around forums like these, occasionally help out with Excel related questions and respond to post that I believe are factually wrong.

Since you have added some more detail on what your market efficiency beliefs are, which has at least implicitly made your stated view quite a bit less extreme than it appeared to be when I first responded to your posts, I do find my posting here rewarding.

As far as comic relief, I'd be happy to provide it. Speaking of comic relief, your verbal tennis match with Monkey in this thread was truly priceless. I am not nearly creative enough to come up with something like that. I have to assume that some of the stuff you claimed as truths was merely a way to try to piss him off, which incidentally seemed to have worked.

[hutennis]

hutennis,
Since you have added some more detail on what your market efficiency beliefs are, which has at least implicitly made your stated view quite a bit less extreme than it appeared to be when I first responded to your posts, I do find my posting here rewarding.

Those are not my beliefs. Those are very well established views on a subject backed up by a multiple serious studies.

I have not changed my position on it a bit. It is always the same.
Hard work put in creating models based on past data in hopes of predicting future results is a waste of time and should be done
only if there is nothing else better to do.
I have no idea what makes you think I have change anything at all from what I posted earlier.

[thom321]

hutennis,

I didn't say you changed your view. I said you explained in more detail what your view is.

Everything we "know" today is still a belief since frequently new data/studies are done to prove that what we thought was true in fact isn't. So regardless of how many "multiple serious studies" show proof of market efficiency in your view, it is still a belief.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I can show you a "study" that pigs flew out of my ass yesterday. Means a lot.

[yak merchant]

I can show you a "study" that pigs flew out of my ass yesterday. Means a lot.

I did the same "Study" yesterday and I can do the same study again tomorrow morning if you want empirical proof.

[wrongturn]

Don't forget the "study" needs to be peer reviewed, otherwise it does not count.

[cyberbabble]

You need to do it for 20,000 days in a row. Otherwise it's random luck.

[chunk]

Obviously off season....everyone has too much time on their hands, and that includes me.