It is why with option trading, or any trading for that matter, success can not be guaranteed from reading a book. If I could mind meld all knowledge I have of trading to someone else, I would still bet against them. Very few people have the constitution to handle the downs.
Anyone who wears a Mensa tie around has got some issues. Making a broad based conclusion based on your experience with the dude, also probably indicative of something. There are some "gut feel" guys trading their own money, probability says at least a few will be successful. A couple made it to hedge fund level, most have subsequently blown up. And the vast majority of money is traded by professionals, the kind who yes, can quote BS off the top of their head because it's a very basic and very fundamental concept of their profession and they're professionals.
Interesting generalization you have concluded about who makes it and who doesn't in this business. You wouldn't happen to have any quantitative support of this notion? If so would love to read up on it.
Sure, try https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1573111_code863755.pdf?abstractid=1013421&mirid=1 and a little more orthogonal but a seminal study none the less https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/15265940710750495 for starters. You can also try looking at the employment reports for Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth b-schools vs a random selection of business schools by industry on graduation and x years out by industry, they all publish them on their web sites. And if you're a fan of anecdotal evidence, why don't you put in an application to GS and a couple of hedge funds and let us know how it goes?
Interesting metric of success. You concern is touching, but no need to worry. I enjoy get togethers with my friends and neighbors and only go to parties if putting on a tux is absolutely necessary. Besides weddings which I generally enjoy, I've managed to avoid that nonsense for nearly a decade now thank goodness.
If I may revive an old thread (as I start to better understand what was communicated within it ha): McMillan in his books mentions that IV for a LEAPs generally trades in a tighter range compared to near term maturities. I understand his remark when curves are compared across strike... the LEAPs are flatter, the near terms are steeply skewed and relatively more sensitive, etc. But what if we standardize the curves as you did above? Let's say according to their Delta. The curves are much more commensurate in shape. My question: does his contention that IV trades in a much tighter range still hold up when we compare across Delta? I don't think it would, right? To be clear, he was addressing traders against using LEAPS in a short calendar (long front month, short LEAPs) due to - Im assuming - time Vega risk. I'm guessing he was moreso addressing the point that the LEAPs leg may be more unresponsive than the near month leg to changes in volatility measured across strike. But as an absolute generality made when comparing two curves across Deltas, his comment about the IV range being tighter would not hold water, correct?
my suspicion on skew is that it may be to do with the gamma process part of the levy kinchtine exponential, intesnsity versus size of the up moves and down moves . probably the odd terms in the characteristic function. if one was to sell in an escalating fashion and then buy it all back this would not be skew because the time between the selling is not exponentially distributed.