Noah Katz

Wouldn't MM's who sold the puts make a stink about this?

OK thanks. The description says the strategies naturally hedge each other, but I have to wonder at the amazing performance when the S&P has risen 62% during the trading period. Any idea what would have happened in a stagnant or falling market?

Sounds like something I'd be interested in; I stopped SO because it was too time-consuming. What will the cost be? SimplySafe Options Safe&Simple Options Safimple Options just kidding Simple & Safe Options S&S Options SOS Safe Options Simply, Simple Options Safely

I was addressing whether it's a zero-sum game, not whether it's professionals vs. novices. Though if the former is true, it would be hard not to conclude that the latter is.

No, of course not. I'm just thinking of all the money I've lost buying calls and puts that expired worthless. No one's fault but my own, but seems like money went directly from my pocket to the sellers of those calls and puts, which supports (but not proves) the zero sum thesis.

I don't understand enough to believe one way or the other, I just don't see the arguments given including enough of the market players to paint an overall picture. That may well be an impossible task.

Thanks for the links, Kim. Seems to me that the reasons given why it's not zero sum are too narrow in either the time or scope considered. If it's not, then overall wealth is being created, and to my admittedly limited knowledge no one has claimed that for options trading.

Seems to me that the real question, at least I understood it, is this: Is the options market in essence a zero sum game like a casino, where the winners' winnings are the losers' losings?

Two good choices, welcome to you both!

Yes, you have to get the right options permission, which you can do electronically and easily if you use Tradier.

I chose Remove, because even though they're interesting, during the week they're a distraction when we're trying to keep up with trades and discussion posts. How about put them all in one email sent out on Saturdays.

This response from Tradier when I asked about two accounts may help clarify: If you switch to the TLT Elephant plan, it is $119 for your first account, $45 for the 2nd and free for the 3rd. The $119 is refunded if you do at least 3,000 contracts in a month. The $45 is refunded as well if you do over 5,000 contracts in the month. The big difference here is the TLT plan includes the TradeHawk platform. The $40 SteadyOptions plan does not include that.

I've never seen a charge on my statements or account activity page; is it embedded in the position cost so that the prices we see are net? Also, do existing Tradier/Tradehawk subscribers need to do anything to get switched to this free? Thanks, and THANKS for setting this up.

Can changing the price cause it to go to a different broker, or does the order have to be cancelled and re-submitted?

Ah, so canceling and re-submitting orders is a way of shopping different brokers. That's very useful to know, thanks.

So why doesn't that "another" fill the order?

Could to know, as this has happened to me many times. But it seems nonsensical; why would the brokerages forego the income from filling it.?

Well that's lame; thanks

Wondering what it could offer that's competitive with free trades at Firstrade, except perhaps for a better UI...

Good point

May I ask what full capacity is? I often wonder how many of us may be trying to put on the same trade.

Good idea, thanks

Wow, sounds almost too good to be true. Is there a way, like Tradehawk's Strategies, to group positions into calendars, Flys, etc for monitoring? Also, any thoughts on how to deal with the ~5 day account transfer dead period so as to minimally disrupt trading activities?

Fair enough, thanks

How do you know that orders would have actually been filled at whatever paper prices you used for reference? I've many times (though not recently) had orders sit for days and never get filled.