I see a lot of traders following classical chart patterns . Being a pattern follower myself for some years , here is my advice to them as I feel some pointers will improve their accuracy . Again , this is not the only correct way but what I have learnt from my experiences
More from Subhadip Nandy
My presentation on Money Management was based on a lot of sources as I mentioned. For traders interested on those sources , here they are
#OptimalF
Portfolio Management Formulas: Mathematical Trading Methods for the Futures, Options, and Stock Markets by Ralph Vince
The Mathematics of Money Management: Risk Analysis Techniques for Traders by Ralph Vince
#SecureF
#FixedRatio
The Trading Game: Playing by the Numbers to Make Millions by Ryan Jones
https://t.co/U0c65EbEog.
#OptimalF
Portfolio Management Formulas: Mathematical Trading Methods for the Futures, Options, and Stock Markets by Ralph Vince
The Mathematics of Money Management: Risk Analysis Techniques for Traders by Ralph Vince
#SecureF
#FixedRatio
The Trading Game: Playing by the Numbers to Make Millions by Ryan Jones
https://t.co/U0c65EbEog.
This is actually an interesting question and a correct observation. Many people before you also have made this observation, so I am going to explain this the best I can
I am trading since badla days. There being long meant you had to pay badla / interest and being short meant you received badla. Similar to an options buyer having theta burn and an options seller being theta positive. So the bias among pros were being short bit
Now, as of now I am an options buyer. All my strategies are geared towards options buying, so I have a theta burn continuosly. I do use strategies to cover that a bit, but still the burn is there
Now, let's consider how an options buyer makes money. His enemy is theta, vega can be friend or enemy ( coming to this in next tweet) , Delta is whether his view is right or wrong
Now say I am bullish on BNF and I buy calls and I am directionally correct . As BNF goes up, generally IV will decrease. This leads to a double whammy.
1. Vega hurts me
2. Theta decay increases.
So, the position does give money, but slowly
Ek baat to hai dada, u like mandi over teji.. Don't u... I mean u play both sides bt still... Im ryt \U0001f911\U0001f911
— VaibhavSharma (@vaibhav2631) September 23, 2022
I am trading since badla days. There being long meant you had to pay badla / interest and being short meant you received badla. Similar to an options buyer having theta burn and an options seller being theta positive. So the bias among pros were being short bit
Now, as of now I am an options buyer. All my strategies are geared towards options buying, so I have a theta burn continuosly. I do use strategies to cover that a bit, but still the burn is there
Now, let's consider how an options buyer makes money. His enemy is theta, vega can be friend or enemy ( coming to this in next tweet) , Delta is whether his view is right or wrong
Now say I am bullish on BNF and I buy calls and I am directionally correct . As BNF goes up, generally IV will decrease. This leads to a double whammy.
1. Vega hurts me
2. Theta decay increases.
So, the position does give money, but slowly
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp5bpvjXQAEMxB1.jpg)
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp5cWdfXQAA501l.jpg)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp5dUCgWwAAqUSL.jpg)
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?