Live data from Hacker News

Offline Algorithms in Low-Frequency Trading

queue.acm.org

101–106 of 106 posts

Re: Offline Algorithms in Low-Frequency Trading

#101
post #96
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The vast majority of people should buy a 20-30% dip, and so the fact that 99% of the time you're not going to be assigned means that it's a good idea in most scenarios. So "people should buy a 20-30% dip" but should not be invested already? Because if they are, selling puts may not be a good idea.

I think what he is suggesting is that historically buying after a 20% or more sell-off leads to outsized gains in the US market. That does not preculde already being invested as sitting on the sidelines waiting for such a move can be self defeating (the market rises 50% then drops 30% dramatically you would still be better off to have bought day one). If you sell puts and are assigned, it may or may not happen at the…

The point is that if you're already fully invested you don't have money to buy those additional shares. And if you didn't want the leverage before, commiting to take on leverage later may or may not be a wise thing to do.

It may make sense if you had dry powder waiting for a correction. But at that point you are forced to buy (and as you say it may be at a higher price that the prevailing one in the market). You get premiums but you lose flexibility.

Re: Offline Algorithms in Low-Frequency Trading

#102
post #66
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the clear copyright statement, > Copyright (C) 2020-2021 Terence Kelly. All rights reserved. did you happen to get the author's permission to put that up? I don't even like IP law that much, but its funny to me how much no one gives a shit. This was a crime, albeit a silly and small one.

Copyright infringement is not a crime in and of itself. It's only criminal when it's done for commercial purpose with financial gain which is clearly not the case here.

That's incorrect. Otherwise people would be able to freely share music and movies.

Re: Offline Algorithms in Low-Frequency Trading

#103
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright infringement is not a crime in and of itself. It's only criminal when it's done for commercial purpose with financial gain which is clearly not the case here.

That's incorrect. Otherwise people would be able to freely share music and movies.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's a crime.

Re: Offline Algorithms in Low-Frequency Trading

#104
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's incorrect. Otherwise people would be able to freely share music and movies.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's a crime.

That's literally the definition of a crime. I think you mean to say it's not immoral.

Re: Offline Algorithms in Low-Frequency Trading

#105
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's a crime.

That's literally the definition of a crime. I think you mean to say it's not immoral.

You're ignorant pertaining to what you are talking about. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/crime a crime is supposed to be offensive. The only thing this law being broken is offensive to is copyright holders who are one, punishing people for promoting their content, and two, the media is protected for an obscene amount of time to where usually eventually the ip is purchased from someone who put no effort into the art and is only interested in making money. To me, THAT is a crime.

Re: Offline Algorithms in Low-Frequency Trading

#106
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's incorrect. Otherwise people would be able to freely share music and movies.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's a crime.

It is a shame that people rarely question or complain about unfair laws to the point of restoring justice and decency.
Post reply on HN