Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little Equities, Fixed Income, Metals, U308 and Crypto.
Frequency: Many times daily
Duration: Never
Posts: 5,059 since Dec 2013
Thanks Given: 4,410
Thanks Received: 10,226
While I actually agree with you @ron99, I heard something last week, that could be interesting if it is true. The argument was that the flaw in the current polls is that they all assume who the "likely voters" are, which is all based upon previous years. This year though the Trump campaign thinks the "likely voters" are very different and that the polls are completely missing that. That leads me to the following article, which actually discusses 'likely voters' among other things and explains why 1+1 doesn't equal 2 in political polls...
This is why I use Fivethirtyeight.com because they use several polls and average them based on a weighed average based on their accuracy in the past. Plus other adjustments.
Nobody that works for the Trump campaign is smart enough for me to trust their judgment.
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little Equities, Fixed Income, Metals, U308 and Crypto.
Frequency: Many times daily
Duration: Never
Posts: 5,059 since Dec 2013
Thanks Given: 4,410
Thanks Received: 10,226
Love Fivethirtyeight.com and Nate Silver. Have his book on my desk but haven't gotten around to reading it yet. The point was though that all this analysis is based upon historical relationships, and that maybe this year, those relationships aren't valid.
The price changes from 8/17/15 to 8/24/15. Draw downs (DD) are using 6X IM naked puts. They were all 5.18 delta on 8/17/15.
Oct 1820 3.85 to 69.20 +65.35 50% DD 98% account balance for IM
Nov 1740 2.70 to 29.30 +26.60 47% DD 92% account balance for IM
Dec 1690 6.40 to 54.60 +48.20 42% DD 76% account balance for IM
If you add two long 1.50 delta puts to these shorts you get on 8/24/15 (DD is max from entry to 8/24/15),
Oct 1820-1680 1.55 (60 DTE) to -3.20 (longs made $237.50 more than short lost) 8% max DD, 20% account balance for IM
Nov 1740-1570 2.10 (95 DTE) to -0.80 (longs made $145.00 more than short lost) 10% max DD, 24% account balance for IM
Dec 1690-1490 2.60 (123 DTE) to 3.20 +0.60 10% max DD, 28% account balance for IM
While the 60 DTE looks good above that is only because the futures drop happened immediately after entering the position. If the drop happened 15-30 days later the longs would not have given much coverage. In fact if you didn't exit on 8/24/15 that spread went on margin call 9/28/15.