The Perfect Option position

Discussion in 'Options' started by Maverick74, Nov 12, 2003.

  1. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    I just noticed that typo. LOL. Yup, I guess it does exist then. Sharp eye Riskarb, sharp eye.

    Actually I do have some pills but they won't help much with the market. :D
     
    #181     May 27, 2004

  2. Sh*t, never traded under the influence? Don't know if I've traded sober during this insomnia-fest known as forex.:D
     
    #182     May 27, 2004
  3. aradiel

    aradiel

    wtf is legging ? I still cant figure its whole concept out. It sucks to be stupid and not having english as birth language. :D Would it be some sort of amendment position ?
     
    #183     Jun 2, 2004
  4. damir00

    damir00 Guest

    that's one advantage of the Left Coast: pills grow like weeds. er, pills are weeds. no, wait, the weeds are pills.

    something like that...

    pass the doritos.
     
    #184     Jun 3, 2004
  5. Thanks Maverick, this whole thread offers me so much to learn and digest. :cool:
     
    #185     Jun 3, 2004
  6. Just finished reading this long and excellent thread.

    Do you think this Perfect Strategy is suitable for QQQ?
     
    #186     Nov 1, 2004
  7. i thought we drove a stake through the heart of this thread ages ago......

    sell a near straddle and buy (more) far strangles-- it's the same damn idea without all the legs.

    wee
     
    #187     Nov 1, 2004
  8. sorry, I am new here, don't quite understand, do you mean diagonal, for example, sell 1 front month stradle and buy 2 back month strangle, this is suitable for QQQ?
     
    #188     Nov 1, 2004
  9. look at the posts on or around 11/12/03. the p.o.p. was a long near butterfly and a long back wrangle, i.e. 7 legs (insane). the essential concept of the idea, simplified, is to sell near-term vol, delta neutral, against a long dual backspread "wrangle," further out in time.

    you can obtain a similar profile much more simply by selling near straddles and buying more strangles further out in time, in some ratio that you would have to determine.

    i am not endorsing this position, just restating the gist of it.

    wee
     
    #189     Nov 1, 2004
  10. I see. Thanks.
    Then, is there any significant difference?
     
    #190     Nov 1, 2004