Watch HowardCohodas Trade Index Options Credit Spreads

[HowardCohodas]

Howard, after reading everything presented, even with my layman's knowledge of options (like yourself) it is plain to see you don't know what you're talking about, or have any kind of edge for that matter. You'd be much better off in admitting you're wrong and giving back your fraudulently won vendor fees, even if it means having to dump your portfolio.

Who is the fraud? You said you have read everything here, yet you missed the fact that I have collected no fees. You say you are unqualified, yet you feel qualified to judge. Give me a break!

 

[DashRiprock]

Howard, after reading everything presented, even with my layman's knowledge of options (like yourself) it is plain to see you don't know what you're talking about, or have any kind of edge for that matter. You'd be much better off in admitting you're wrong and giving back your fraudulently won vendor fees, even if it means having to dump your portfolio.

spot on.

But Howard will never admit to this, he is too stubborn and too proud and takes himself too seriously to think that he's spent the past however many months working in a framework that is akin to thinking that the earth is flat or that the moon is made of cheese.

 

[JRP2891]

Who is the fraud? You said you have read everything here, yet you missed the fact that I have collected no fees. You say you are unqualified, yet you feel qualified to judge. Give me a break!

To quote Descartes;

"It is a truth very certain that when it is not in our power to determine what is true we ought to follow what is most probable."

You are a vendor/newbie trader with 6/7 months of real trading experience. Many arguments have been presented here and on other forums by extremely well respected members who have vast quantities more knowledge on the products you are trading. Why do you think you're right, and they're all wrong? I'm truly interested to hear your answer. I apologise if i missed the part where you haven't charged for your services yet.

 

[DashRiprock]

yeah howard shove descartes up your socratic method!

 

[HowardCohodas]

Who is a fraud here?

DT cites examples that have been shown numerous times to be contrary to what I wrote and then draws erroneous conclusions about my trading. Once is a mistake. Twice is suspicious. Three or more is a fraud.

PZ points out criticisms from another forum that are similar to criticisms that are levied here. Yet somehow he missed some of the support in the same thread. That is not only unbalanced reporting but a fraud meant to deceive readers here.

PZ states that I receive the same criticisms everywhere, yet he only cites the forums where I have received criticism. He left out the half dozen or so where that is not so. Readers should not be deceived by such selective reporting with a clear agenda.

Fraud is a disservice to the consumers whether they are readers of this thread or students to be taught a method of trading without disclosing all the risks. Those here claim that my intention to teach irrespective of my disclosures is prima facie a fraud. Yet many of these same critics openly and actively carry on a current fraud in this thread. I refer people who have expressed an interested in taking my class when I am ready to teach it to this thread. Why do you suppose I do that?

 

[DashRiprock]

Who is a fraud here?

DT cites examples that have been shown numerous times to be contrary to what I wrote and then draws erroneous conclusions about my trading. Once is a mistake. Twice is suspicious. Three or more is a fraud.

PZ points out criticisms from another forum that are similar to criticisms that are levied here. Yet somehow he missed some of the support in the same thread. That is not only unbalanced reporting but a fraud meant to deceive readers here.

PZ states that I receive the same criticisms everywhere, yet he only cites the forums where I have received criticism. He left out the half dozen or so where that is not so. Readers should not be deceived by such selective reporting with a clear agenda.

Fraud is a disservice to the consumers whether they are readers of this thread or students to be taught a method of trading without disclosing all the risks. Those here claim that my intention to teach irrespective of my disclosures is prima facie a fraud. Yet many of these same critics openly and actively carry on a current fraud in this thread. I refer people who have expressed an interested in taking my class when I am ready to teach it to this thread.Why do you suppose I do that?

because on aggregate the people who approach you for option classes have even less (percieved) understanding of option theory and practice than you do. So by continuing to make ad hominem arguments against those who have made a critique of your strategy for what it really is, rather than what you would like it to be, you gain the confidence of those who lack the necessary understanding to see you - and your strategy - for what they really are.

Also, mods, now can you see what I have been getting at?! Howard is using Trade2Win as a tool to promote his coaching service, in contradiction to rules 4.1 and 4.3 of the site guidelines. the rule states that:

4.1 T2W does not allow members to post advertisments of any kind either in the forums, in journals, in the Traderpedia or anywhere else where members can publish content on the website or the chatrooms. The only exception to this rule is posts within the dedicated “T2W Sponsors Announcements” Forum, which is for our paid sponsors to promote their products.

4.3 Advertising includes, but is not limited to: posting the URL of your commercial web site; offering for sale (or a free trial of) your product and/or service; posting references to, excerpts from, or details of your product and/or service; submitting a post with minimal content that, even in the absence of explicit references towards your product and/or service, is clearly designed to act as a lure towards it; posting your Email address or asking members to contact you for details of your product and/or service.
("Your" in the instances above includes any commercial connection between the vendor ("you") and the product and/or service in question).

Howards only intention on making posts at Trade 2 Win is for this purpose and this purpose alone.

 

[HowardCohodas]

To quote Descartes;

"It is a truth very certain that when it is not in our power to determine what is true we ought to follow what is most probable."

You are a vendor/newbie trader with 6/7 months of real trading experience. Many arguments have been presented here and on other forums by extremely well respected members who have vast quantities more knowledge on the products you are trading. Why do you think you're right, and they're all wrong? I'm truly interested to hear your answer. I apologise if i missed the part where you haven't charged for your services yet.

What other forums have you read that you are qualified to make such a statement?

What qualifies you to decide if the critics are well respected since nearly all hide behind pseudonyms? Cite any real names that can be verified in the real world. Credibility comes from accomplishment. I have published here and elsewhere. It is what it is.

Your apology strikes me as insincere. It was the core of your criticism. Yet I made the point in numerous posts. Has you even skimmed ALL the posts, I find it hard to believe you missed all the setups to this subject and all the responses.

Many of the concerns expressed here in a polite and coherent manner have, in fact, modified my approach. Many of the criticisms were made in supposition to what I do without carefully reading my explanation of what I do. Therefore, these criticisms, though well meaning, need to be taken in context.

Why do I think I am right? Because where I have been shown to be wrong, I adjust. Let's see if you display the same courtesy.

 

[DashRiprock]

What other forums have you read that you are qualified to make such a statement?

What qualifies you to decide if the critics are well respected since nearly all hide behind pseudonyms? Cite any real names that can be verified in the real world. Credibility comes from accomplishment. I have published here and elsewhere. It is what it is.

Your apology strikes me as insincere. It was the core of your criticism. Yet I made the point in numerous posts. Has you even skimmed ALL the posts, I find it hard to believe you missed all the setups to this subject and all the responses.

Many of the concerns expressed here in a polite and coherent manner have, in fact, modified my approach. Many of the criticisms were made in supposition to what I do without carefully reading my explanation of what I do. Therefore, these criticisms, though well meaning, need to be taken in context.

Why do I think I am right? Because where I have been shown to be wrong, I adjust. Let's see if you display the same courtesy.

This, Howard, is a bare faced lie.

 

[HowardCohodas]

because on aggregate the people who approach you for option classes have even less (percieved) understanding of option theory and practice than you do. So by continuing to make ad hominem arguments against those who have made a critique of your strategy for what it really is, rather than what you would like it to be, you gain the confidence of those who lack the necessary understanding to see you - and your strategy - for what they really are.

I don't get your point about why I would refer potential students to this thread.

Everyone would be interested in verifying your accomplishments to properly establish your credibility in such comments. What have you published that can be verified? What have you accomplished that can be verified. And can you cite ad hominem attacks that I have made that were unprovoked?

Without credibility, your remarks simply pollute the thread and many have been removed by the mods.

 

[DashRiprock]

I don't get your point about why I would refer potential students to this thread.

Because you are using this thread to solicit confidence in your abilities from potential customers of your option trading course.

Everyone would be interested in verifying your accomplishments to properly establish your credibility in such comments. What have you published that can be verified? What have you accomplished that can be verified.

You can verify each and every post I have made here howard, including the ones that demonstrate you do not understand option theory or practice. That, I believe, I have accomplished.

And can you cite ad hominem attacks that I have made that were unprovoked?

See below

Without credibility, your remarks simply pollute the thread and many have been removed by the mods.

 

[Martinghoul]

Everyone would be interested in verifying your accomplishments to properly establish your credibility in such comments. What have you published that can be verified? What have you accomplished that can be verified. And can you cite ad hominem attacks that I have made that were unprovoked?

Howard, I am not interested in arguing with you further, but I'd like to interject here...

This makes no sense. You're the only person here who's making a categorical assertion about their understanding and knowledge of the subject. You do that by offering your ETC services, whether paid or gratis, to novices. The onus to demonstrate accomplishment and credibility is, therefore, on you and on you only.

Lemme offer you an analogy. Imagine you go to the movie theater and see a really sh1t film. Then you meet the director and tell 'em that the movie was really crap. The director's response to you is to tell you to go make movies of your own before daring to criticize theirs. Would smth like that make sense to you?

 

[arabianights]

I don't get your point about why I would refer potential students to this thread.

Everyone would be interested in verifying your accomplishments to properly establish your credibility in such comments. What have you published that can be verified? What have you accomplished that can be verified. And can you cite ad hominem attacks that I have made that were unprovoked?

Without credibility, your remarks simply pollute the thread and many have been removed by the mods.

Anyone with a background in trading can tell that Dash has one too... it doesn't have to be verified.

 

[JRP2891]

What qualifies you to decide if the critics are well respected since nearly all hide behind pseudonyms? Cite any real names that can be verified in the real world. Credibility comes from accomplishment. I have published here and elsewhere. It is what it is.

That's your own assumption. I find it hard to believe that DT, Paz, Dash, Meanreversion, Brettus, Arabian, to name but a few, are all the same person(s) trying to destroy your credibility for some unknown reason. Their writings on other threads about trading lead me to believe that they are in fact very credible critics. Yes they may be a tad harsh at times, but you bring it on yourself with your inability to admit the slightest possibility that you could be wrong. That's not a good trait to have as a trader FYI.

 

[HowardCohodas]

Because you are using this thread to solicit confidence in your abilities from potential customers of your option trading course.

You can verify each and every post I have made here howard, including the ones that demonstrate you do not understand option theory or practice. That, I believe, I have accomplished.

See below

Using this thread to recruit students makes no sense if all the criticism is believed. Helping students with their due diligence is a more rational explanation.

Your posts here establish you as less than credible in the eyes of many who have communicated with me. That you think it does should be a good reason for some self reflection.

Regarding ad hominem attacks. I think you need further education. Such attacks are "to the person." I did not criticize you, I criticized your behavior. There is considerable difference between the two.

 

[meanreversion]

Howie, is it any wonder that people can't take you seriously?

You need to understand that options and spreads are instruments. They are tools to achieve your goal.

An IC is not a strategy. It is a tool.

The IC tool allows you to play IV. The source of your positive expectancy comes from better forecasting IV than the market, not from the IC itself.
By simply selling or buying an IC you're entitled to nothing except zero expectancy minus costs.

Ninna

Howie replies:

My portfolio is hugely Theta positive. Why does this not contribute to positive expectancy?

Because theta is priced in, obviously.

I think that you need to learn alot about options...

Ninna

Howard - do you seriously believe that positive theta is equivalent to positive expectancy?

I suppose if all things positive are good, then one would choose to be HIV positive as well?

 

[HowardCohodas]

That's your own assumption. I find it hard to believe that DT, Paz, Dash, Meanreversion, Brettus, Arabian, to name but a few, are all the same person(s) trying to destroy your credibility for some unknown reason. Their writings on other threads about trading lead me to believe that they are in fact very credible critics. Yes they may be a tad harsh at times, but you bring it on yourself with your inability to admit the slightest possibility that you could be wrong. That's not a good trait to have as a trader FYI.

Some of those who you mention have helped me refine my strategy. Some that you include in that list are risible.

Your beliefs establish the credibility of the critics? That's even more self-important than I am capable of being.

 

[HowardCohodas]

Howard - do you seriously believe that positive theta is equivalent to positive expectancy?

I suppose if all things positive are good, then one would choose to be HIV positive as well?

Unless you read the entire dialog you will not understand the context. And unless you know when the dialog occurred, you will be hard pressed to know if I have learned anything since.

 

[HowardCohodas]

Howard, I am not interested in arguing with you further, but I'd like to interject here...

This makes no sense. You're the only person here who's making a categorical assertion about their understanding and knowledge of the subject. You do that by offering your ETC services, whether paid or gratis, to novices. The onus to demonstrate accomplishment and credibility is, therefore, on you and on you only.

Lemme offer you an analogy. Imagine you go to the movie theater and see a really sh1t film. Then you meet the director and tell 'em that the movie was really crap. The director's response to you is to tell you to go make movies of your own before daring to criticize theirs. Would smth like that make sense to you?

No it would not. But neither would it make sense for me to tell the director how to modify his movie to make it better. I'm not criticizing the criticism, I'm assigning it the veracity of my perception of the critic.

You're the only person here who's making a categorical assertion about their understanding and knowledge of the subject.

What!?

Yes, the onus is on me to establish accomplishment and to educate students to protect themselves from folly.

 

[Martinghoul]

Unless you read the entire dialog you will not understand the context. And unless you know when the dialog occurred, you will be hard pressed to know if I have learned anything since.

Sorry, I can't help myself... I am drawn into this against my better judgement.

Howard, you seem to be talking a lot about "learning", "improving", "refining" etc recently. That's commendable and I applaud you for being receptive to the lessons the mkt teaches us all. However, do you think someone who's doing quite so much "learning" should be doing any "teaching"?

What!?

Not sure which part of what I said wasn't clear. I never said I am an expert and neither did anyone else. My comments are always to be taken as my personal opinion, no more no less, with a large pinch o' salt.

 

[DashRiprock]

Using this thread to recruit students makes no sense if all the criticism is believed. Helping students with their due diligence is a more rational explanation.

Or, to make the impression of helping customers with their due diligence whilst challenging them to accuse you of pretending to know more than you do.

for example

Student: "Howard, I've seen your course, but how do I know you are the real deal?
Howard: "Well, if you take a look at this thread you can see for yourself"
Student: "But Howard, most of the people in that thread are saying you don't know what your talking about and that you shouldn't be teaching a course"
Howard: "What, DashRiprock? What has he published? Does he have an option trading journal? And do you really think someone who posts so much LULZ can be taken seriously?
Student: "Well, I suppose not... but what about the others?"
Howard: "They're all the same. Anyway, if I was a conman, why would I show you that thread?
Student: "ummm...."
Howard: "Do you think I am a con man?"
Student: "No, that's not what I said"
Howard: "Good, glad we've cleared that up. Now, do you want to pay in one go or by installments?

It's a simple confidence trick, happens in sales all the time.