you'd be surprised how inefficient the markets actually are in practice. for example, while i was trading indian options, implied vols were consistently higher than realised vol for the very simple fact that retail loved to buy options and there wasn't enough capital among the risk-tolerant market makers to absorb all that flow. so a sufficiently informed retail trader could profit by simply selling options in those overpriced names.
it really is similar to the argument for why startups exist at all -- if the opportunity was real, why hasn't big tech already absorbed it? in practice, seems like it's either because the market is just so large that everyone can have a slice of the pie, or the pie is so small that the titans just cbs (e.g. cross-exchange arbitrage in crypto was a lucrative opportunity for a while -- an obvious and easily engineerable strategy).
Will the coming wave of AI-assisted amateur traders make markets more efficient especially as they are more motivated to seek value in less liquid places, or will it be like sending children with candy into the playground that the bullies can easily steal? Or is it both? Asking for a friend.
I would like to trade the time spent giving away ideas to AIs for time spent in nature.
Actually it's a well executed front for a build-me-a-technical-trading-execution-package-as-a-service scheme. Not sure if that's a thing. Surely you'd just use an AI if you could describe what you wanted? Articulating it effectively implies familiarity required to build. Handing it back to a human seems ... obtuse.
Hm:
> SEAN: Alright, let's get into it. Two things you've named — let me be straight about both.
> SpaceX: it's private. You can't buy SpaceX stock or options on any public market.
The question IMO is can retail, even using AI, get a good enough data pipeline at a reasonable cost to make any idea at all worth trading?
Presumably the 'small' edges to the degree they existed in the first place have been worn away.
You're paid to hold risk, innit?
you'd be surprised how inefficient the markets actually are in practice. for example, while i was trading indian options, implied vols were consistently higher than realised vol for the very simple fact that retail loved to buy options and there wasn't enough capital among the risk-tolerant market makers to absorb all that flow. so a sufficiently informed retail trader could profit by simply selling options in those overpriced names.
it really is similar to the argument for why startups exist at all -- if the opportunity was real, why hasn't big tech already absorbed it? in practice, seems like it's either because the market is just so large that everyone can have a slice of the pie, or the pie is so small that the titans just cbs (e.g. cross-exchange arbitrage in crypto was a lucrative opportunity for a while -- an obvious and easily engineerable strategy).
Will the coming wave of AI-assisted amateur traders make markets more efficient especially as they are more motivated to seek value in less liquid places, or will it be like sending children with candy into the playground that the bullies can easily steal? Or is it both? Asking for a friend.
Seems like a honey pot for ideas ?
My sentiments exactly.
I would like to trade the time spent giving away ideas to AIs for time spent in nature.
Actually it's a well executed front for a build-me-a-technical-trading-execution-package-as-a-service scheme. Not sure if that's a thing. Surely you'd just use an AI if you could describe what you wanted? Articulating it effectively implies familiarity required to build. Handing it back to a human seems ... obtuse.
"You'll leave with a strategy report"
"No report, no lecture"
Somewhat contradictory wording.
Does this work with algobetting?
hey this seems like a cool product!
hey appreciate the feedback! how useful was it for you?
[dead]