Nor would you need to. Beatingthesp, the point people are making is that you have at this point adjusted your stories so many times as they have been pointed out to be dreadfully in correct that this thread has now degraded into noise. You continue to say you use the terms incorrectly but they suit your needs yet you have stated youâre interested in getting in front of a real options firm. Those two things wont work together, just as posting some number and calling it a track record over and over wont work.
It's not difficult to solve for a beta based upon each underlying and position-deltas, but it would be absurd. Convexity is the reason. You don't need to understand internal combustion to drive a car, and 'beatingtheSP500" should be thankful that analogy holds true for trading in options.
Sorry, I'll type slower next time. Whatsa matter? You're a little cranky. Mr Market not treating you well?
It's firmly established beta is not acceptable. I've alluded to that quite a few times. Why are you still stuck on that point? Book delta as a term is a near hit, but not quite due to fact the number can be greater than 1. Leverage was suggested and may have to be used. Unless you have a better term.
I dont see anyone other then you being cranky. Why is it then when people on these type boards get some exposure to facts they always think those who are providing those facts are some how doing poorly in the market? Its a common theme with those who endlessly post unsubstantiated claims which are scoffed at by people who actually know what theyâre talking about.
Gamma. It defines convexity. dgamma, it defines the slope and modality of the convexity/concavity. And wtf is this "greater than 1" nonsense? An option delta cannot exceed one, but htf is that relevant to a portfolio? I am long 4,000 SPX-equivalent deltas. I must be mistaken.