I tend to agree with you Paul. And I have to say that the man has a lot of nerve to keep the head cold here or to even wrote mails about that to quant finance specialist such as Duffie. I always considered him as a nice guy and a good mathematician but there are two drawbacks:-first his writing are very hard to understand ( I'm saying that being a french so far from being fluent in English). Actually I even don't get any of his ideas.-second he tends to believe that he is right and that the rest of the world is wrongI'm pretty sure that if he can overcome that, understand what is hedging, then he will be on the road to be a good quant.I'm supporting him especially because the guy is self taugh and VERY resistant to mockery. But now he has to prove that he deserves this support, that he can move forward over his drawbacks . I believe you List and I hope that you are not quack.

Quote I tend to agree with you Paul. which bit of what Paul wrote do you agree with ? All of it ? Paul makes no guarrantees that "list" can be taught simply that he would relish to do so. Quote I'm pretty sure that if he can overcome that, understand what is hedging, then he will be on the road to be a good quant.hyperbole, as usualQuote But now he has to prove that he deserves this support, that he can move forward over his drawbacks . I believe you List and I hope that you are not quack. denial is not a river in Egypt.

option hedging remarks is (going to be) a classic! better even than Monty Python, Bottom or Little Britain

I think it's very easy to laugh at people when you are a so called "specialist or an expert" already established in a domain. But before being that you were a young student who had no idea about what a risk neutral probability or a derivative is. You are not born has a trader or quant, you was taught to be a trader or a quant. However, I do not totally disagree with you about List . The guy is too much stubborn, self proud and most of what he is believing as "revolutionnary ideas" are non senses. The guy has to admit he is wrong and has to listen to experts from here as you, bearish, ACD, tinman and all the guys trying to make him understand. Teaching people is very nice, laughing about their ignorance is far much less ...If really you are pissed about him them simply ignore him. I'm sure you enjoy this thread very much and actually I find it a bit mean and cynical but well one has to take his pleasure as he can. I wish I could travel in the past too see how the kick ass traders were before doing their studies .

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangeldenial is not a river in Egypt.LOL excellent stuff

QuoteOriginally posted by: frolloosoption hedging remarks is (going to be) a classic! better even than Monty Python, Bottom or Little Britain Well I don't know if it will be classic but I'm pretty sure that it will finish locked again ...

QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchX I think it's very easy to laugh at people when you are a so called "specialist or an expert" already established in a domain. But before being that you were a young student who had no idea about what a risk neutral probability or a derivative is. You are not born has a trader or quant, you was taught to be a trader or a quant. At this stage laughter is all that's left, the same guy has been polluting threads for years with incorrect nonsense.He is impervious to contradiction and is arrogant enough to think he knows the field better than anyone else here, while he's ignorant of even the basics.Am I exaggerating? He read something, misunderstood it and decided For me the modern finance looks like a disaster and derivatives field like Haiti earthquake.So he's here to set us all straight you see.All that happened was he got pinned down and was asked for a straight answer to a straight question. As usual he responded with untelligible gibberish.Use the search function and you'll see plenty of examples of people trying to correct him without success.All that happens is he goes quiet only to reappear a few weeks later with another one of his groundbreaking realisations.QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchX However, I do not totally disagree with you about List . The guy is too much stubborn, self proud and most of what he is believing as "revolutionnary ideas" are non senses. The guy has to admit he is wrong and has to listen to experts from here as you, bearish, ACD, tinman and all the guys trying to make him understand. Teaching people is very nice, laughing about their ignorance is far much less ...You must get splinters sitting on the fence so often.QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchX If really you are pissed about him them simply ignore him. Yeah great idea, if he didn't regularly interject in other threads and derail them with his usual nonsense.Sending mails to famous people is all very well, if you think that's admirable that's up to you.Derman mentions in his book that every physics department in the world has a box where they keep the letters from the various quacks who think physics is 'wrong'.QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchX I'm pretty sure that if he can overcome that, understand what is hedging, then he will be on the road to be a good quant. You're basing this on what exactly? Your years of experience?Like I said before, if you want to think he's some kind of smart mathematician you go right ahead.I've met plenty of mathematicians, from my experience they tend to listen very carefully. He doesn't listen at all.Someone pointed out below some of his writings are from years ago, and none of his opinions have changed since then.I doubt they'll change anytime soon.

It is easier to write the stuff in this thread than saying them out loud if the person was in front of you.Although I agree with the general opinion that list's arguments and tactics are not up to the standard we'd like to see, frenchX is correct when he says that specialists will have to show (much) more patience when dealing with those who do not understand their field, even those who show misunderstanding.I'm guilty of being agressive when writing at Wilmott.com, I'm trying to get better on that.list: Please take a step back, DM Paul, consider the CQF as an option.

QuoteOriginally posted by: MCarreiraIt is easier to write the stuff in this thread than saying them out loud if the person was in front of you.Although I agree with the general opinion that list's arguments and tactics are not up to the standard we'd like to see, frenchX is correct when he says that specialists will have to show (much) more patience when dealing with those who do not understand their field, even those who show misunderstanding.I'm guilty of being agressive when writing at Wilmott.com, I'm trying to get better on that.list: Please take a step back, DM Paul, consider the CQF as an option.I don't get why some people think this is bullying - this is nothing compared to what he would get if turned up on a trading floor and start spouting this cr*p. nonbody would trust him with the order to get coffees in let alone a model he might develop !

This is a very though and complex problem actually and it's far from being simply black or white. I wll resume my opinion in those few points For List:+you have to confess that the guy has guts (maybe too much)+the guys seems to be a self learner so he should have spent a lot of time (I'm really wondering what did he misunderstood in the basic principle, I think it's hedging but I'm not sure)Against List:- the guy wrote his points in other thread and threadjacked them that's not fair (very NOT acceptable in fact)-the guy doesn't want to admit he is wrong (that's the MAIN drawback)-the guy can't express himself in a proper way Seriously to prove him he is wrong I think that the last try would be to find a false equation in his paper but actually I don't understand the paper !The world is not so manichean as a lot of Wilmotters would like. This is not the trading floor, this is the "Student section" of forum mainly consulted by people who wants to learn quant finance. The convention here is not the same as in the Technical or Trading forum. If you don't agree just ignore him, that's the best you can do for yourself (you save your time) and for him.What I fear the most is that nothing will change

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: MCarreiraIt is easier to write the stuff in this thread than saying them out loud if the person was in front of you.Although I agree with the general opinion that list's arguments and tactics are not up to the standard we'd like to see, frenchX is correct when he says that specialists will have to show (much) more patience when dealing with those who do not understand their field, even those who show misunderstanding.I'm guilty of being agressive when writing at Wilmott.com, I'm trying to get better on that.list: Please take a step back, DM Paul, consider the CQF as an option.I don't get why some people think this is bullying - this is nothing compared to what he would get if turned up on a trading floor and start spouting this cr*p. nonbody would trust him with the order to get coffees in let alone a model he might develop !daveangel, you are among the most patient teachers at the Student Forum, and I agree that trading floors are much tougher; but since it's already been established that he's impervious to the kind of arguments we're used to throw at each other, persisting in arguing/mocking can become an end in itself, with people challenging themselves for the cleverest turn of phrase, and the original purpose of the Forum (helping those who don't know or understand but would like to) is now secondary.

Quote The world is not so manichean as a lot of Wilmotters would like. This is not the trading floor, this is the "Student section" of forum mainly consulted by people who wants to learn quant finance. The convention here is not the same as in the Technical or Trading forum. If you don't agree just ignore him, that's the best you can do for yourself (you save your time) and for him.What I fear the most is that nothing will change I think you are a touch condescending... I didn't say this was the trading floor. I said if he went to the trading floor and started spouting his cr*p he would get a lot more stick than he got here. We have tried ignoring him - he keeps popping up and writing the same drivel week in, week out... pathetic.

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelWe have tried ignoring him - he keeps popping up and writing the same drivel week in, week out... pathetic.I agree that this is problematic. What I would do to stop him is to point explicitely a mathematical error in his paper. The man cannot be reasonned but in front of fact it might be different. Pointing out his very mistake should also help him to progress (at least I hope ...)

QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchXQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelWe have tried ignoring him - he keeps popping up and writing the same drivel week in, week out... pathetic.I agree that this is problematic. What I would do to stop him is to point explicitely a mathematical error in his paper. The man cannot be reasonned but in front of fact it might be different. Pointing out his very mistake should also help him to progress (at least I hope ...)This is unique correct way to prove that you are right. Find a mistake in definition or in a formula. others are only emotions.

QuoteOriginally posted by: listQuoteOriginally posted by: frenchXQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelWe have tried ignoring him - he keeps popping up and writing the same drivel week in, week out... pathetic.I agree that this is problematic. What I would do to stop him is to point explicitely a mathematical error in his paper. The man cannot be reasonned but in front of fact it might be different. Pointing out his very mistake should also help him to progress (at least I hope ...)This is unique correct way to prove that you are right. Find a mistake in definition or in a formula. others are only emotions.That has been done several times already, just with me you've produced a formula that you claim excludes arbitrage, I have shown this claim to be false with an example. Why don't you address this problem with your results. Also I've given you a derivation of the price for the call option in the example daveangel gave you, feel free to find a mistake in a definition or in a formula there there... The ball is in your court.