Complaint about Howard Cohodas, his associated threads and the treatment of them

[donaldduke]

The real question is whats T2W's motivation in promoting this ?

Trade2win are part of the Vending community.

The site has a long history of publishing articles and interviews by Vendors.

Some of the vendors used for 'content' purposes have more experience and better reputation than others. They may well be scraping the bottom of the barrel with Howard, i cant comment as i haven't been following his threads.

 

[DashRiprock]

Trade2win are part of the Vending community.

The site has a long history of publishing articles and interviews by Vendors.

Some of the vendors used for 'content' purposes have more experience and better reputation than others. They may well be scraping the bottom of the barrel with Howard, i cant comment as i haven't been following his threads.

Howard:

1. is abusing trade to win to further his own interest.
2. has demonstrated that can't teach options.
3. continues to avoid legitimate questions (see above)

AND

4. t2w put up an interview with him, according a sense of credibility that has been overwhelmingly demonstrated isn't appropriate

BUT

I post a lulzy song and its removed.

 

[barjon]

sigh, I really don't know what you guys want. If you take the view that no vendor has anything of trading interest to say that is worth consideration and/or discussion then, unless opinion has changed, you are in the minority when members were asked about vendor participation some time ago (the vendor tag came from that debate).

Whatever conspiracy you fancy might be lurking round corners the name of the game remains as set out and these are not empty words:

Trade2Win.com (T2W) is a professional trading resource that promotes mature, intelligent & respectful discussion in a positive & safe environment for everyone. T2W is dedicated to developing and maintaining a friendly online community, where members of all ages and trading ability feel relaxed and comfortable.

and

Trade2Win (T2W) prides itself on being the leading community web site for active traders. Our aim is simple, we want to unite and support active traders across the globe. To this end we provide a range of facilities to enable our members to communicate with one another, share their knowledge and express their views. Furthermore we seek to provide educational and thought provoking content to help better educate our members in their trading lives.

Now, so far as Howard's stuff is concerned he has set out in some detail what and how he is trading and he has provided "evidence" of how that strategy is progressing so far. Many of you regard his strategy as seriously flawed and you are quite entitled to express that opinion, although a lot that has been said (on both sides) is a far cry from mature, intelligent & respectful discussion

At the end of the day, if you don't want to play by the rules and the aims of T2W then go somewhere else.

jon

 

[arabianights]

More I've thought about it, the problem is if Howard's posts are removed for being dodgy, then that means t2w is implicitly endorsing the other dodgy vendors!

 

[DashRiprock]

sigh, I really don't know what you guys want. If you take the view that no vendor has anything of trading interest to say that is worth consideration and/or discussion then, unless opinion has changed, you are in the minority when members were asked about vendor participation some time ago (the vendor tag came from that debate).

Whatever conspiracy you fancy might be lurking round corners the name of the game remains as set out and these are not empty words:

Trade2Win.com (T2W) is a professional trading resource that promotes mature, intelligent & respectful discussion in a positive & safe environment for everyone. T2W is dedicated to developing and maintaining a friendly online community, where members of all ages and trading ability feel relaxed and comfortable.

and

Trade2Win (T2W) prides itself on being the leading community web site for active traders. Our aim is simple, we want to unite and support active traders across the globe. To this end we provide a range of facilities to enable our members to communicate with one another, share their knowledge and express their views. Furthermore we seek to provide educational and thought provoking content to help better educate our members in their trading lives.

Now, so far as Howard's stuff is concerned he has set out in some detail what and how he is trading and he has provided "evidence" of how that strategy is progressing so far. Many of you regard his strategy as seriously flawed and you are quite entitled to express that opinion, although a lot that has been said (on both sides) is a far cry from mature, intelligent & respectful discussion

At the end of the day, if you don't want to play by the rules and the aims of T2W then go somewhere else.

jon

so the people policing the forum can't tell what is good content from bullsh!t?

 

[DashRiprock]

Howard how on earth is it possible to teach something that you don't understand?

Not understanding less than others is not a legitimate answer (and is heresay)

 

[barjon]

so the people policing the forum can't tell what is good content from bullsh!t?

Exactly so - I might have my personal opinion but the moderator role is to keep discussion broadly within the rules, not to cast judgement as to whether content is sound or not.

 

[DashRiprock]

Exactly so - I might have my personal opinion but the moderator role is to keep discussion broadly within the rules, not cast judgement as to whether content is sound or not.

Howard is using t2w as a springboard for his option course. It has been demonstrated over and over again that he doesn't not correctly understand option theory or practice, and if the content of his course bears any resemblance to the content he has posted here much if it is factually incorrect.

This has been explained to Howard again and again and again, but he ignores any position that does not support his view that he is a suitable teacher (largely because he does not understand the arguments he is presented with, which any layperson familiar with options should have no problem with grasping).

Do you thing it right or wrong that he should be allowed to canvass for business?

 

[barjon]

Do you thing it right or wrong that he should be allowed to canvass for business?

Wrong - and if there is overt canvassing or something near it (like the few threads here I have deleted) then he'll pay the price.

 

[DashRiprock]

Wrong - and if there is overt canvassing or something near it (like the few threads here I have deleted) then he'll pay the price.

His whole presence on this website is to drum up business for his course!

 

[HowardCohodas]

Howard how on earth is it possible to teach something that you don't understand?

Not understanding less than others is not a legitimate answer (and is heresay)

How is it possible for you to ignore seven months of trading with 126 trades closed, 10.6% return per month, month on month, ...?

You may conclude correctly that there is potential danger in the way I trade. You may conclude my strategy for avoiding account collapse when a black swan event occurs will be ineffective. If so you do it without any apparent basis since you show zero knowledge of that element of the strategy.

 

[counter_violent]

:idea: Sometimes I am slow to understand things. Perhaps because it was you, I had an flash of understanding.

The model most here have of how a student comes to a decision is that he is seduced, takes a course by the seducer and loses money based on a faulty strategy. My original reaction was based on ego. "How could these guys think that of me? That is not me!

Your post helped me understand that I was trying to respond to your model. My mistake was not recognizing that that model has little basis in reality.

Even if it was I that brought the idea of trading credit spreads to a potential student, it is rarely the case that the student would not explore other alternatives to learning that strategy. Not my promotional approach, nor my attractive price, nor any gifts of persuasion that I may have would get someone to become my student without exploring other alternatives.

So, is the student better off or worse off with me in the game? I've done a competitive analysis of other providers of similar instruction so I speak with that perspective. This is what I have found. I know more about the credit spread aspects of trading options than many of my potential competitors do. Those who think I know next to nothing about options should think on that.

My strategy appears to perform better than most at the same level of risk (as judged by PoT). My risk mitigation strategies appear more effective than they teach. I can find no-one who practices my portfolio arrangement to mitigate the damage from a black swan event. Although my record is rather short by even my estimate, I compare favorably for the months I have traded.

Even if you conclude, none of that matters because this is fundamentally a faulty strategy, ask yourself this. Are the students better off learning from me or from my competitors if they are committed to learning anyway?

Up until this moment, I was backing away from the idea of teaching because those whom I respect were pushing so hard for me to do so. I could have pretended I was still on the fence, but that is against my code.

This realistic model of how a potential student comes to be my student, I conclude, is at the core of my current decision to move forward regarding teaching. I believe he is better off with me than the others I have studied.

And herein lies the rub. Howard is at best a gifted amateur retail trader (nothing wrong with this) but by his own admissions is not a qualified/ time served industry professional. Period.

Whereas it may be ok for Howard to outline a strategy known to him and even to form a discussion group for interested parties, it is certainly not ok for him to set himself up as a kind of guru/ expert/ teacher of whizzdom for financial gain. (the price being charged however little it may be, is still classed as a financial gain)

I have no issues with people being interviewed and any resultant critical comments. If they put themselves in the spotlight, then they can expect to be scrutinized.

 

[the hare]

Exactly so - I might have my personal opinion but the moderator role is to keep discussion broadly within the rules, not to cast judgement as to whether content is sound or not.

Thats fair. The issue that you are not adressing is that by his own admission, he has extremely limited experience.

If any of the moderation or administration team actually traded for a living then their own experience would be enough to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Howard would be very unlikely to be able to impart anything remotely of value to others after such a short period of time trading this strategy.

Even if the mods or admin had zero real experience, and only a limited interest in options, then common sense should be more than enough to reach the same conclusion.

On top of this you have a vendor using every trick in the book, and a complete refusal to answer the most basic of questions. Just take a look at the fiasco over extracting simple information regarding risk and reward.

T2W has become a parody of a trading site, and whilst its funny and entertaining for those who can see the joke, the comments Dash made concerning responsibility and morality of proactively promoting this kind of lulz are a serious issue thats not being addressed.

 

[HowardCohodas]

Wrong - and if there is overt canvassing or something near it (like the few threads here I have deleted) then he'll pay the price.

You need to PM me to explain why my post was deleted. You have boxed me in. I can be told I don't have a right to teach, and you leave those posts up. But I cannot provide any counter argument that touches on an intent to teach. Sheesh.

"Never confuse the law with justice."

 

[DashRiprock]

You see barjon?! Let me discect Howards reply for you. This is typical of his.

How is it possible for you to ignore seven months of trading with 126 trades closed, 10.6% return per month, month on month, ...?

Howard often cites the results of his strategy so far, usually adding that they are stastically significant*.

In order to see why this is wholly incorrect (and not to mention misleading to those who don't understand option theory) is the premium to risk ratio that Howards strategy has. Strategies of this type are said to be "front-loaded", that is they make money to begin with and often cause their proponents to fall into a false sense of security.

To draw an analogy, Howard is playing russian roulette with a revolver that's got 1,000 chambers. Howard has got to 126 "clicks" and been paid $1 for each. He is under the impression that when he finally lands on the bullet, he will be able to pull his head out of the way before it kills him.

In reality, it is fundamentally impossible for Howard to avoid the bullet. It has nothing to do with his risk management or his reaction speed, it is a priori impossible to avoid due to the way that options are priced and traded (Howard doesn't understand this). Howard refutes this ad infinitum. He is absolutely wrong, as I and about a hundred other people have pointed out. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding in option theory.

You may conclude correctly that there is potential danger in the way I trade. You may conclude my strategy for avoiding account collapse when a black swan event occurs will be ineffective. If so you do it without any apparent basis since you show zero knowledge of that element of the strategy.

The fact is that Howard doesn't have an element to avoid this strategy - it is inherently unavoidable. It's like saying chickens can exist without eggs.

* Also, Howard often posts graphs of his past performance - often using archaic accounting practices in order to artificially improve his performance statistics. On a website where he is interviewed and mentions he has an option coaching service where students can learn his particular strategy.

Does this fit within the trade 2 win guidelines?

 

[barjon]

You need to PM me to explain why my post was deleted. You have boxed me in. I can be told I don't have a right to teach, and you leave those posts up. But I cannot provide any counter argument that touches on an intent to teach. Sheesh.

"Never confuse the law with justice."

well, it is still there since cv has replied to it, but something that is about your skills as a teacher and why students would be better off with you is across the line even though i appreciate you were responding. You will appreciate that comments about your "right to teach" were born from doubts about your trading strategy and it's there that the central discussion should be placed.

jon

 

[HowardCohodas]

You see barjon?! Let me discect Howards reply for you. This is typical of his.



Howard often cites the results of his strategy so far, usually adding that they are stastically significant*.

In order to see why this is wholly incorrect (and not to mention misleading to those who don't understand option theory) is the premium to risk ratio that Howards strategy has. Strategies of this type are said to be "front-loaded", that is they make money to begin with and often cause their proponents to fall into a false sense of security.

To draw an analogy, Howard is playing russian roulette with a revolver that's got 1,000 chambers. Howard has got to 126 "clicks" and been paid $1 for each. He is under the impression that when he finally lands on the bullet, he will be able to pull his head out of the way before it kills him.

In reality, it is fundamentally impossible for Howard to avoid the bullet. It has nothing to do with his risk management or his reaction speed, it is a priori impossible to avoid due to the way that options are priced and traded (Howard doesn't understand this). Howard refutes this ad infinitum. He is absolutely wrong, as I and about a hundred other people have pointed out. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding in option theory.



The fact is that Howard doesn't have an element to avoid this strategy - it is inherently unavoidable. It's like saying chickens can exist without eggs.

* Also, Howard often posts graphs of his past performance - often using archaic accounting practices in order to artificially improve his performance statistics. On a website where he is interviewed and mentions he has an option coaching service where students can learn his particular strategy.

Does this fit within the trade 2 win guidelines?

Small elements of truth about the options market.

No elements of truth about my strategy that I can discern. He talks about a theoretical strategy only and says it is mine. It is not.

His definition of arcane accounting has not the remotest element of fact that I can discern.

 

[DashRiprock]

Small elements of truth about the options market.

No elements of truth about my strategy that I can discern. He talks about a theoretical strategy only and says it is mine. It is not.

His definition of arcane accounting has not the remotest element of fact that I can discern.

Just so you are aware barjon, Howards strategy is not really much of a strategy at all.

He is paying $0.01 commissions and crossing a $0.02 spread for changing a $1 bill into two 0.50c coins, and a set of rules for when to do it and when to not. It is also pretty reliant that he doesn't panic and c0ck it up when there is a spike and the spot price gets uncomfortably close to his short strike, because in this case his gamma will explode and the value of his position will go up and down like a whore's drawers.

He doesn't understand what his exposures are or what his P&L is a function of or how to take a view on it.

 

[tar]

 

[HowardCohodas]

well, it is still there since cv has replied to it, but something that is about your skills as a teacher and why students would be better off with you is across the line even though i appreciate you were responding. You will appreciate that comments about your "right to teach" were born from doubts about your trading strategy and it's there that the central discussion should be placed.

jon

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in "The Departed," "If I could'a, I would'a."

My argument is an expansion of an argument that I made earlier. That is, is my "right to teach" based on an absolute scale or a relative scale (grading on the curve, I think I said). If on an absolute scale, there is no discussion. They think I shouldn't. I now believe I should.

Their argument centers around doing right by the student. I found no way to competently argue that the student would be better off with me other than looking at what the student's options and decision process would be. Otherwise I am asked to swim in a straight jacket. The rules guarantee my drowning.