Okay, this is going to be my last post on this.
No market marker makes money 100% of the time. To suggest that they do is outright preposterous and misleading. The largest market maker in the world George Soros has losing trades.
Link 1
Link 2 Quote
He cuts short his loses and moves on.
Okay here are some examples from India
Link 1
Link 2
I spent around 5 minutes trying to find the above. Obviously you can dig out a lot lot more if you have got the free time.
No one in the market makes money 100% of the time, not even market makers.
Obviously I am not talking about such cases where someone takes one trade and by fluke that turns out to be a winner.
The movie "Rogue trader" is based on a true story of a market maker - Here is the Wikipedia article
So obviously I can quote a true story and prove my point.
I dont know if you have read what I said.
I said
That is true no matter what twist you make to a hypothetical trade.
In your example, I am assuming you are short selling equity (One can sell the equity); if that is the case then it is a bearish view and to hedge that you can take a bullish view by selling puts.
and in the end I want to make one point before everyone here thinks I have come to ruin this thread.
Quote from John J Murphy's Technical Analysis Of The Financial Markets, Page 158.
This thread is fine but the amount of interpretation being drawn from just the Options OI is mind boggling. Obviously some of it is being made up as we go along as there is no basis for such interpretation. I doubt you can quote from a book about some conclusions being drawn in this thread about OI.
I don't intend to argue further so don't expect me to respond.
That is silly. Market makers don't always make money. When they realize they are wrong market makers do square off their losses. If they don't, they lose money just like anyone else.
Link 1
Link 2 Quote
He (Soros) also took a $2 billion hit during the Russian debt crisis in 1998 and lost $700 million in 1999 during the tech bubble when he bet on a decline. Stung by the loss, he bought big in anticipation of a rise. He lost nearly $3 billion when the market finally crashed.
Okay here are some examples from India
Link 1
Link 2
I spent around 5 minutes trying to find the above. Obviously you can dig out a lot lot more if you have got the free time.
No one in the market makes money 100% of the time, not even market makers.
Obviously I am not talking about such cases where someone takes one trade and by fluke that turns out to be a winner.
Don't criticize some one just quoting a movie.
So obviously I can quote a true story and prove my point.
Why not hedging involves selling puts ?
One can sell the equity write puts at a much lower strike with the intention of buying at a lower price.
One can sell the equity write puts at a much lower strike with the intention of buying at a lower price.
I dont know if you have read what I said.
I said
Hedging a long position never involves selling puts.
In your example, I am assuming you are short selling equity (One can sell the equity); if that is the case then it is a bearish view and to hedge that you can take a bullish view by selling puts.
and in the end I want to make one point before everyone here thinks I have come to ruin this thread.
"Price (action) is by far the most important. Volume and OI are secondary in importance and are used primarily as confirming indicators. Of those two (volume and open interest) volume is the more important.
This thread is fine but the amount of interpretation being drawn from just the Options OI is mind boggling. Obviously some of it is being made up as we go along as there is no basis for such interpretation. I doubt you can quote from a book about some conclusions being drawn in this thread about OI.
I don't intend to argue further so don't expect me to respond.