"Who is on the other side of the trade in illiquid options? Do you really think that all options are matched up with two people that just happen to want the same strike, month and number of options?"................ Do you suppose that the mm might be the other side of the trade and that he might be the one making more money on most option trades than option buyers?
Um, if it's illiquid, then there is a dearth of buyers & sellers, right? If there's no one to sell to, then you won't be able to buy. It's pretty much that simple. Bottom line............ For every seller of a call or put, there has to be a buyer. That is no different than a stock transaction. If a put or call expires worthless, the buyer obviously takes a loss & the seller books a gain. If a put or call expires in the money, how can you determine whether the buyer &/or the seller booked a gain or a loss?
Are you now trying to say that if a market maker is on the other side of the trade, that he or she is not a person? Are you saying that a market maker is always on the winning side of a trade? Are you also saying that covered call writers are not people too? What exactly is your point now?
"The ones that make out well are the covered call writers. Those who deal in trading options are overall losers. Some win, for sure, but not most."
Your original question simply stated, """Did Lo tell you that most people LOSE on options and was there some little incentive to sign up for the paying portion of her talk or site? """
You are now attempting to make material changes to your original inaccurate statement. You did not mention that you do not think market makers are not people. You did not mention that covered call writers are not people people in your original inaccurate statement.
Even if somehow covered call writers aren't trading options, or they just don't count as people in your hypothesis; Where is the data that clearly shows that most naked options traders lose? Doesn't there have to be someone on the other side of EVERY option trade? If so, how can most options traders lose? Sounds like half win & half lose in the end unless there is some magical way to create non-persons on one side of some options trades. What am I missing, or is there something material you failed to mention to qualify your original baseless claim?
How was I suppose to know all of your unspoken, albeit materially limiting criteria when I responded to the original false assumption of yours?
You see, unlike you, I do not jump to conclusions, nor do I make accusations when there is no factual data to support my POV. I deal with the facts before me without extrapolating additional unmentioned information or bias that might make my assumptions TOTALLY WRONG like you did repeatedly tonight.
"ROFLMAO! And you're an expert, eh?"
Where did I ever claim to be an expert?
"This will be my last post to you. I don't think living in fantasyland talking about some hypothesis in which no one wanted to trade anyway is silly. "
Just had to get one last dig in didn't you?
Bye |
