NexusFi: Find Your Edge


Home Menu

 





How much can I earn with Options?


Discussion in Options

Updated
      Top Posters
    1. looks_one kevinkdog with 20 posts (29 thanks)
    2. looks_two blb014 with 14 posts (11 thanks)
    3. looks_3 wldman with 5 posts (19 thanks)
    4. looks_4 tpredictor with 5 posts (3 thanks)
      Best Posters
    1. looks_one wldman with 3.8 thanks per post
    2. looks_two PK 1 with 3 thanks per post
    3. looks_3 kevinkdog with 1.5 thanks per post
    4. looks_4 blb014 with 0.8 thanks per post
    1. trending_up 31,861 views
    2. thumb_up 117 thanks given
    3. group 18 followers
    1. forum 76 posts
    2. attach_file 0 attachments




 
Search this Thread

How much can I earn with Options?

  #71 (permalink)
 blb014 
Dallas, Texas
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: TOS
Trading: AAPL, /ES, IWM, SPY Options
Posts: 330 since Oct 2012
Thanks Given: 554
Thanks Received: 187


wldman View Post
I'm unable to see a point in an ongoing debate. It could be that there is a misunderstanding, a semantics issue, about the understanding of what a zero sum game is and why or if that matters.

A derivative contract is not a finite thing. It is created by contractual agreement between two adverse participants...one buyer and one seller. Net winners and net losers do not match to zero ergo a zero sum output could happen, but so could any other outcome.

Long to open could be paired with short to open or short to close. Short to open could be paired with long to open or long to close. The obligations created are not linked.

But I'm pretty sure I don't know what Kevin is talking about.

That pretty much sums it up.

It is possible to lose more on call contract than the initial and that is no where close to being zero sum. You have to consider the option pricing model also

Kevin can you show an example with real option data where contracts over a certain time period equaled zero? There is your answer.

Volatility is good for the market and trading.

Preservation of capital is the most important concept for those who want to stay in the trading game for the long haul. - Van Tharp
Reply With Quote

Can you help answer these questions
from other members on NexusFi?
Are there any eval firms that allow you to sink to your …
Traders Hideout
Exit Strategy
NinjaTrader
My NT8 Volume Profile Split by Asian/Euro/Open
NinjaTrader
NexusFi Journal Challenge - April 2024
Feedback and Announcements
Futures True Range Report
The Elite Circle
 
Best Threads (Most Thanked)
in the last 7 days on NexusFi
Get funded firms 2023/2024 - Any recommendations or word …
61 thanks
Funded Trader platforms
39 thanks
NexusFi site changelog and issues/problem reporting
26 thanks
Battlestations: Show us your trading desks!
26 thanks
The Program
18 thanks
  #72 (permalink)
 blb014 
Dallas, Texas
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: TOS
Trading: AAPL, /ES, IWM, SPY Options
Posts: 330 since Oct 2012
Thanks Given: 554
Thanks Received: 187


jackbravo View Post
It seems to me there are two different discussions here. TheShrike and KevinKDog are talking about the math behind futures ONLY. Everybody else is discussing the reality of the overall market.

All money from winning FUTURES trades + all losses from losing Futures trades = 0

There is no arguing with that equation. If you disagree with that equation, then write the equation you think is correct.

Sent using the NexusFi mobile app

You do realize futures /ES is a derivative of S&P 500 index stocks, you add in options (what this thread is about) and it is most certainly not zero sum.

I encourage you to go explore and study derivatives (options) and the option pricing model.

Volatility is good for the market and trading.

Preservation of capital is the most important concept for those who want to stay in the trading game for the long haul. - Van Tharp
Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #73 (permalink)
 
jackbravo's Avatar
 jackbravo 
SF, CA/USA
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: SC
Broker: Stage 5
Trading: NQ...uh..ES actually
Posts: 1,337 since Jun 2014
Thanks Given: 4,362
Thanks Received: 2,400



blb014 View Post
You do realize futures /ES is a derivative of S&P 500 index stocks, you add in options (what this thread is about) and it is most certainly not zero sum.

I encourage you to go explore and study derivatives (options) and the option pricing model.

That's fine. But I'm addressing the point of FUTURES ONLY being a zero sum equation. You're adding options. I'm just saying that you guys are discussing different things.

Sent using the NexusFi mobile app

"It does not matter how slowly you go, as long as you do not stop." Confucius
Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #74 (permalink)
 kevinkdog   is a Vendor
 
Posts: 3,645 since Jul 2012
Thanks Given: 1,890
Thanks Received: 7,338


blb014 View Post
That pretty much sums it up.

It is possible to lose more on call contract than the initial and that is no where close to being zero sum. You have to consider the option pricing model also

Kevin can you show an example with real option data where contracts over a certain time period equaled zero? There is your answer.

I am starting to realize as @jackbravo stated that we (me, shrike, Jack) are talking about a totally different concept than you, wldman and harryguy.

So let me try to understand you. Can you explain (with numbers preferably) what you mean by this:
"It is possible to lose more on call contract than the initial and that is no where close to being zero sum. You have to consider the option pricing model also"

and then explain what you are asking for with this: "can you show an example with real option data where contracts over a certain time period equaled zero?"

Because I honestly don't understand what you are asking.

If you don't want to explain, that is fine too. At this point, everyone is probably pissed at each other anyhow, likely because we are talking about different things. Might be better for everyone's sanity just to let this discussion die unresolved.

Follow me on Twitter Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #75 (permalink)
 tpredictor 
North Carolina
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: NinjaTrader, Tradestation
Trading: es
Posts: 644 since Nov 2011

I think the problem is and I pointed this out several posts ago, the definition of a zero sum game. I think some arguments, to Kevin's point, is result of misunderstandings. However, my example conclusively demonstrates that Kevin's arguments based on the presupposition that the futures market is zero sum are wrong.

Wikipedia describes it mathematically, sum of wins and sum of losses and mentions zero-sum thinking as basically thinking one loss must come from another.

However, Merriam-Webster defined it as

A situation in which one person or group can win something only by causing another person or group to lose it.

Business dictionary describes it thus:
In decision theory, the 'lose-lose' situation where all participants lose or the sum of winnings (positives) and losses (negatives) is negative. See also positive sum game and zero sum game.
-----

My points are very clear

1. If we consider the futures PARTICIPANTS and the EXAMPLE I gave, the futures market does not have to be zero sum.
2. If we consider Merriam-Webster definition, the word "cause" is a problem. In my example, the speculator does not cause the arbitragers losses even if we don't consider that they actually made a profit. The arbitrager did "cause" the speculators hypothetical loss even though they acquired an actual win.
3. If we consider it purely mathematically and as a closed system. Kevin is right. However, he is INCORRECT about the implications of that it is zero/negative sum because he FALSELY believes that one traders gains HAVE to come from another losses. Notice I said "trader". Yes, all CONTRACTS have sum to zero. But, all TRADERS can win. Go back to my example if you don't believe me. Remember, he uses the argument that futures markets are zero sum to argue that it must be competitive and claims failing to see this is ignoring reality. My argument clearly shows this to be incorrect.


Mathematically with the formal definition Kevin is right. Mathematically the futures market is a zero sum (and negative sum with costs) games. However, he is wrong about where the losses have to come from and the conclusion that all traders must lose. His arguments that futures markets must be competitive stem from idea that one traders win must come from another's losses. On the second argument, he is wrong "that it must" because I shown an example where it DID NOT. Of course, that does not mean that it cannot be competitive-- it certainly can be.

In other words, technically and ironically the futures market is a zero sum game but the thought because of that it must lead to zero sum thinking is incorrect. The mistake derives from the thought that the only way to make money from futures trades is by winning the profit another-- in reality the arbitrager can offset it with the stock market. The wins could come from drift in market, investors, stock traders, etc. no one really knows but they don't have to come from another traders losses. Kevin is also correct if we consider HYPOTHETICAL profits. In the example I gave, hypothetically the speculator lost $25 but made $2,000 actual. The arb trader shows an actual loss $2000 but made $25. If we don't get philosophical though, if I make $2,000 and the trader I'm trading against makes $25 then it is a net benefit or win-win.

The error in Kevin's thinking is the result of considering the futures market as a closed system only and/or not excluding equity index futures from his argument. As for other markets, I'm not sure. However, even if they are negative sum, the arguments regarding competition can still be debated because of uncertainty and hedging. For example, let's say an oil refiner wants to lock in their profits from crude oil. They have the oil underlying product. They short the futures market. They think it will probably rise but the risk to the downside is too high to take. Some global event causes futures to rise. They may shown an actualized futures loss but didn't really lose anything because they hold the underlying. They only lost a hypothetical profit. It is more like paying an insurance.

What else? Some might argue we can ignore the arbitrager's profit -- that it somehow came from the equity market but, in the example, provided it could not. The arbitrager merely knew the value of the index and quoted offset from it. Their profits therefore must have came from the futures side.

Reply With Quote
  #76 (permalink)
ssp729
São Paulo, Brasil
 
Posts: 9 since Mar 2017
Thanks Given: 0
Thanks Received: 4

Trading VIX options in 2018 february you could have made a lot of money, but you could have lost all too...

Reply With Quote
  #77 (permalink)
ChrisDouthit
San Francisco CA USA
 
Posts: 40 since Jan 2020
Thanks Given: 2
Thanks Received: 17

There is no limit to how much money you can make with options. If you’re on the buy side, you could make huge returns to get into the right situation. However, most buy side positions fail, so that’s a big if. With smart sell side investing, you could easily make 40% per year if your diversified and react quickly. You can then bang this out year after year.

Reply With Quote




Last Updated on February 3, 2020


© 2024 NexusFi™, s.a., All Rights Reserved.
Av Ricardo J. Alfaro, Century Tower, Panama City, Panama, Ph: +507 833-9432 (Panama and Intl), +1 888-312-3001 (USA and Canada)
All information is for educational use only and is not investment advice. There is a substantial risk of loss in trading commodity futures, stocks, options and foreign exchange products. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
About Us - Contact Us - Site Rules, Acceptable Use, and Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy - Downloads - Top
no new posts