"brokers" generally don't. Are there any other than Robinhood? I've tried quite a few and all have greeks, volatility etc.
27 karma · joined April 21, 2018
The basic idea of options is that you think the price is going to be somewhere within a certain period of time and you place a bet saying so. If you bet right, you make money, if you bet wrong, you lose it.
The different strategies give you different ways of targeting prices. For example a call debit spread is essentially "I think the price will be below $X in Y days", an Iron Condor is "I think the price will be between $X and $Y in Z days" and a straddle is "I think the price will move by $X in either direction in Y days".
The different strategies also have different profit/loss curves. For example selling a call option has unlimited loss potential (the stock could theoretically soar 1000x before the option expires) while selling a call spread has defined loss potential.
The process for me is basically find somewhere where the option is typically priced higher than it's worth and sell spreads. Sometimes this is year round, sometimes around earnings.
Since you're here and talking about community, can you say what your approach is going to be to the copious content on Flickr that violates SmugMug's content policy (but not Flickr's)?
Flickr's approach in the past [0] has allowed most things as long as a content filter is applied to keep it from kids and those who don't want to see it. SmugMug's approach [1] is to very broadly ban anything "indecent" in any context whatsoever (even private backups).
I contacted support and the story right now is that SmugMug policy will apply and any Flickr content that violates it is up for removal. Are you sticking to that? If so, why? It seems like a very destructive thing to do to the community as your first act after acquisition.
This is destructive and makes me sad for Flickr's future.
I just hope they don't decide to mass delete everything with a content filter applied, since in theory all that content violates their new policy.
Smugmug's Acceptable Use Policy [0] is rather puritan, forbidding things that are "indecent", "lewd", "sexually suggestive" or anything else that "in the sole judgment of SmugMug, is objectionable, harmful".
Flickr's [1] on the other hand is rather accepting: "If you would hesitate to show your photos or videos to a child, your family, or a stranger on the street, that means you need to set the appropriate content filter setting."
I really hope Smugmug doesn't force their ideals on Flickr. It'd be nice if instead they used Flickr as an example of how to loosen content restrictions on Smugmug.