Rebuttal
I am honoured that my small article has been chosen to be so thoroughly analysed and trashed! A few words in my defense:
1. It would be a mistake to confuse "hype" with "enthusiasm". On my site, I am not selling anything - no e-books, no e-mail lists - nothing. I do have some affiliate links for which I scatter adverts throughout my pages, along with Google ads. This is no different from any magazine or newspaper who sell advertising to cover costs. So, I am not trying to "soften" anybody up. My current click-through-rate is about 2%, which means that 98% of people come to my site leave without clicking on any of the links. I did the site as a bit of a hobby, and to learn about HTML and SEO etc, and the links serve to cover my costs, although they in no way cover the time I put in for the site development. If you read deeper on my site, you will see that I promote a bunch of free stuff as the basis for my approach - why pay for what you can get for nothing!
2. I am VERY and unapologetically enthusiastic about credit spreads, because I messed with options for several years before finding a system that works for me. I have been consistently and very successful with the technique that I describe on my site, and it works very well for me. Is it clunky and not too sensitive to the minutae of gamma etc - yes! But it is VERY simple, and I have a long list of e-mails from people who have done very badly at options because they were gambling and getting bogged down with technical analysis. This simple, clunky technique that I describe has helped them get their confidence back. So, even if the theoretical aspects are not intellectually pleasing to you, that does not detract from the fact that I personally (and others that I have helped! For FREE!) have found the process successful.
3. The ezines article has its limits. You are only allowed a certain word limit, and to do a complete analysis of credit spreads is impossible. You would be dumb to judge me on that article! Its purpose is to draw people (and Google) to my site, where I have a very detailed description of exactly how I set up each trade, with every step of technical analysis, and every possible caveat and warning. Even the page on my site is a cover page for about 6 other pages where I get into the nitty gritty detail and where I have detailed examples of a bunch of trades.
4. The comments on my "defense" strategy - this is one of the keys to my technique. Of course, if you let a spread run into negative territory, you lose a bunch of money. However, every real trader knows that you need to have stop loss or exit strategy. Mine is rigid, and is very clearly explained on connected pages. I never go into negative territory - I always get out before any spread goes ITM, and then I sell another spread. This way, I come out very close to neutral.
5. The number of traders who lose/make money. Thanks for the CBOE stats. My comment was a quote of a "statement" that is frequently bandied around on forums, which is why I started it "It has been said...". Of course it is not rigid data - it is a quote of a common comment. Don't take stuff too literally!
So, again, thanks for all the attention, but please go back to my site and dig a little deeper. After that, if you want to start an honest debate instead of just trashing, we can go for it, and I would be happy for the input that would help me fine tune my technique and my site.
I am honoured that my small article has been chosen to be so thoroughly analysed and trashed! A few words in my defense:
1. It would be a mistake to confuse "hype" with "enthusiasm". On my site, I am not selling anything - no e-books, no e-mail lists - nothing. I do have some affiliate links for which I scatter adverts throughout my pages, along with Google ads. This is no different from any magazine or newspaper who sell advertising to cover costs. So, I am not trying to "soften" anybody up. My current click-through-rate is about 2%, which means that 98% of people come to my site leave without clicking on any of the links. I did the site as a bit of a hobby, and to learn about HTML and SEO etc, and the links serve to cover my costs, although they in no way cover the time I put in for the site development. If you read deeper on my site, you will see that I promote a bunch of free stuff as the basis for my approach - why pay for what you can get for nothing!
2. I am VERY and unapologetically enthusiastic about credit spreads, because I messed with options for several years before finding a system that works for me. I have been consistently and very successful with the technique that I describe on my site, and it works very well for me. Is it clunky and not too sensitive to the minutae of gamma etc - yes! But it is VERY simple, and I have a long list of e-mails from people who have done very badly at options because they were gambling and getting bogged down with technical analysis. This simple, clunky technique that I describe has helped them get their confidence back. So, even if the theoretical aspects are not intellectually pleasing to you, that does not detract from the fact that I personally (and others that I have helped! For FREE!) have found the process successful.
3. The ezines article has its limits. You are only allowed a certain word limit, and to do a complete analysis of credit spreads is impossible. You would be dumb to judge me on that article! Its purpose is to draw people (and Google) to my site, where I have a very detailed description of exactly how I set up each trade, with every step of technical analysis, and every possible caveat and warning. Even the page on my site is a cover page for about 6 other pages where I get into the nitty gritty detail and where I have detailed examples of a bunch of trades.
4. The comments on my "defense" strategy - this is one of the keys to my technique. Of course, if you let a spread run into negative territory, you lose a bunch of money. However, every real trader knows that you need to have stop loss or exit strategy. Mine is rigid, and is very clearly explained on connected pages. I never go into negative territory - I always get out before any spread goes ITM, and then I sell another spread. This way, I come out very close to neutral.
5. The number of traders who lose/make money. Thanks for the CBOE stats. My comment was a quote of a "statement" that is frequently bandied around on forums, which is why I started it "It has been said...". Of course it is not rigid data - it is a quote of a common comment. Don't take stuff too literally!
So, again, thanks for all the attention, but please go back to my site and dig a little deeper. After that, if you want to start an honest debate instead of just trashing, we can go for it, and I would be happy for the input that would help me fine tune my technique and my site.
