I had an iron condor as well with 1365 as the short strike call. Entered on monday (9/18) following the exp friday in Sep. The IC was about 45 points OTM on the call side. I took a net loss of about 4 points after that run up and the final 7pt settlement gap. Fortunately, I had similar iron condors in NDX and RUT, both of which were profitable and offset the loss in SPX and left a tiny profit (about 0.25% on capital).
There isn't one that's worth the cost. Not one. If you had a workable system that produced profits on a consistent basis, would you sell it for a few measly bucks, or use it yourself to make many millions? Mark
Couldn't the same thing be said about every CTA in the business? They get paid to make trading calls, with none of their personal money at risk. The failure rate for CTAs is quite high. But you don't see the same vitriol about CTAs as you do advisory services. Is it because advisory services are perceived to be preying on the slackjawed public, while CTAs serve a supposedly higher echelon of client? Your take is more accurate regarding system sellers. They are giving away the farm for a few measly bucks. So was the system all that great to begin with? Isn't a signal calling service more akin to a low-rent, unregulated CTA? I'm not defending either one. I'm just curious about the perceived differences between them.
CTAs take a % of the profits so they have an interest in succeeding, besides CTAs don't have to disclose their exact methods.
2/20. They have an interest in profiting, yes. They also have an interest in pimping themselves and getting as much AUM as possible. How much money did Hunter lose in the Amaranth meltdown? A CTA disclosure document reveals alot about their methods. A signal calling service may or may not reveal much about their methods. Depends on the service. Maybe the perception difference is that when the general public invests with a CTA, they are knowingly giving up trading control to the CTA. When a trader uses a service, he loses some of his "street cred" among other traders. Hence why advisory services are sometimes looked down upon? Particularly straight signal calling services.
That's the point, they have an interest in succeeding as their profits ultimately depend on their track record. Advisories sell for a fixed fee and don't care about their performance. Well, they do, but not as much. Not really, they give out the general description, but leave out the "money making" parts, so to speak.
And a costly education, too. You pays for the service and then you pays Mr Market. Guess which one charges more?