Discussion in 'Journals' started by Sweet Bobby, May 18, 2016.
The math in posts 1094, 1096 and 1099 doesn't add up.
Part of the Tastytrade math that I don't like.
I'm up 1.5% so far this year in what has been a difficult trading environment. No more defined risk trades in the portfolio. The only reason I went to defined risk was because of my small account size than my paper money account. I just trade less often and bigger. So far so good!
If you are deciding to trade undefined risk then you are dealing with a ticking time bomb.
You know not what you say.
Oh but I do know as I have blown up my account 6 times from 1993 to 2008. As I now understand risk and my YTD is up over 25% using ONLY defined risk. What research or experience are you using to justify undefined risk? Are you using stops?
You are selling mostly puts in a raising market, what is so difficult? Karen would be up 10% by now...
Anyhow, her court case should be coming up soon, I will start a thread about that...
When the market is going up , you're the put seller
When the market is going down , you're the putz seller
This comment is ignorant. If you're short one SPY straddle on a $100k account there is no risk of blow up. If you're long/short 5000 verticals with legs $2 ITM and $2 OTM there is a high risk of blowing up the same account despite being a defined risk trade. It's all about leverage and your blanket statement above is simply false. There is nothing wrong with the responsible use of undefined risk trades. Hell--just being long stock is undefined (to zero anyways).
Your claim that your up 25% YTD using only defined risk trades suggests to me that you are using a high degree of leverage (ie. relatively high percentage of capital at risk on a given trade) and/or have been leaning very long. Your history of 6 previous blow ups seems to support this thesis.
Separate names with a comma.