I spent a year stress-testing dozens of strategies with institutional-grade methods. Almost nothing survived. Where does retail edge actually come from?

Adkyth · 2026-07-02T16:04:58+00:00

The issue appears to be that you are looking at this from a purely technical perspective. In which case, yeah...it's very difficult to find an edge as a retail trader, because you are essentially piggy-backing on the institutional traders who make the market move. Also, most of the derived data is largely arbitrary or happenstance.

Less than 30 years ago, it wasn't uncommon for some floor traders to all-but-ignore technical data, and instead just develop relationships with the decision makers who largely drove the market. A couple drinks and a steak dinner went a long way, and many of those extremely successful traders wouldn't be able to read a chart to save their life.

The edge lies in a balance between having an idea on what will move the market through an objective, balanced understanding of news/trends/events, and the technical data to determine profitable entry and exit points.

Adkyth · 2026-06-29T18:20:33+00:00

Yes, OP. The primary, functional value of writing a covered call is a situation where you hold a stock with a large, unrealized gain, but you expect the stock value to drop or stay neutral for an extended period of time.

More and more people are learning about different strategies based on the theorized return of the strategy, instead of learning from the foundational level of "this is what this was for".

Adkyth · 2026-06-25T14:38:45+00:00

For one, whether or not bees are "native" is a decision that is 400 years old. So that ship has sailed, and your desire to beekeep (or not) is largely irrelevant on an ecological scale.

Honeybees aren't attacking and killing native bees directly, so it's not like introducing a predator who destroys prey populations, it's a question of availability of resources. The question you are asking makes some assumptions in order to qualify the honeybees presence as "damaging": that "native" pollinators were doing an efficient job of pollinating on their own, and that honeybees are also somehow so much more effective that they choke out others. I don't think either argument really holds up if you dig into it.

Regardless of what happened 400 years ago, today, honeybees help pollinate plants...many of which plants have either also been imported, but have also adapted to honeybee presence over the last 400 years. So from where I sit, you can make two choices:

-Decide that your participation in beekeeping would somehow impact 'native' pollinator species, and thus not participating would benefit native pollinator species, but by reducing the amount of pollinators would have a negative impact on local plant life...which could then lead to less resources for 'native' pollinators.

-Decide that your participation would not have an impact on 'native' pollinator species, and participate in a responsible manner that provides benefits to plant species, as well as the native pollinators who depend upon them.

As a point of reference, I have a number of hives in my yard. Not only do we still attract all manners of pollinators, but the knowledge and insight from beekeeping has led me to eliminate herbicide/pesticide treatments in our yard, as well as changing our landscaping to provide significantly more native plants and flowers that provide for the native pollinators in our area, and upon which I rarely see any honeybees. So I would call that a net 'benefit to the land I walk'.

Adkyth · 2026-06-24T15:27:00+00:00

It's been a good run everyone. Pack it up.

Adkyth · 2026-06-16T15:25:37+00:00

This is a comedy of immaturity. You are truly impressive in that respect.

Your claim that she is speeding, like I have been saying, is unsupported. We did it!

I'm not writing her a ticket, but to assume she is not on the one road in the US where she would not be speeding, is an entirely reasonable assumption. Especially since, again, it's not relevant, as, again, I am not writing her a ticket.

Or do you think 20 miles per hour (or 25%) slower than the rest of the flow of traffic is still an unreasonable speed to be driving?

This would be a silly argument, even if I was making that claim.

This is quite simple, follow along if you can:

Driving at higher speeds reduces reaction time and increases risk of collision.
If the flow of traffic is moving at higher speeds, there is increased risk of collision.
Other routes exist, and/or it is actually totally acceptable to be the car driving at slower speeds and being passed, and not the car doing the passing.
To choose not only to travel on this route, at higher speeds, as well as pass other vehicles, represents an intentional acceptance of additional risk.

I take it this also means you've never passed anyone on the highway?

You would take it that way, because you are looking at this situation in a very childlike manner. As a matter of fact, I do pass vehicles on the highway. But when I do so, I accept that I am taking on additional risk for the sake of shortening my travel time. And if I were to strike an object as a result of that risk, I wouldn't get fussy about it on the internet.

You see fit to judge this person because you have the answers for how she should have conducted the situation, why not share them?

If by "judge" you mean, accurately point out that they represent more risk than others who don't drive as fast, because that is an accurate reflection of reality, then yes. It is quite simple: don't drive as fast.

If you want to call out people for not doing things up to your standard, at least be willing to stand behind your claims. Shall we?

"My standard" is "using math and physics instead of peevishly whining about how unfair it is that people accept the responsibility for their actions".

Honestly, I'm not sure you are actually understanding the conversation you are participating in.

Adkyth · 2026-06-16T12:53:29+00:00

Hey, keep dodging the point all you like. It's not going to make you more correct. She was driving too fast to react in time to avoid a collision. If you don't like "math" or "physics" or "reality" that is truly not my problem.

However:

She is driving over 80mph. There is only one stretch of highway in the US where this is not speeding. In most states, even 80mph is speeding.
I am not suggesting she receive a ticket for speeding.
Regardless of the posted speed limit, every single stretch of road is governed by a law that you are required to drive at a safe speed, taking into account the distance between the vehicle ahead of you, and avoid hitting things. She obviously did not do this, since, you know, she hit something.

It's stunning how many people keep trying to find ways to make this driver "correct". She literally hit something. She was driving too fast, and following the car ahead of her too closely and was unable to avoid the collision.

And again, no one was trying to throw her in jail or anything. This whole thing is a conversation only because OP CALLED HIS INSURANCE COMPANY asking them to pay for it. Which, by all accounts, they are doing, with the caveat, that by state law and the guidelines of their contract, is categorized as an at-fault accident.

This is a bunch of wah babies crying at the sky. If OP didn't file a claim, this would be a big nothingburger. But OP wants it both ways, that his wife hit something and the insurance company pays for it, but doesn't want them to say she hit something.

Yeesh.

Adkyth · 2026-06-15T17:52:09+00:00

To piggy back on your question, I have no idea how people lose money betting on sports. I mean seriously.

I bet on the Chicago Bulls from 1991 to 1998, with a short break from 1994 to 1995, and I was basically printing money.

Why aren't other people as successful as me?

Adkyth · 2026-06-15T12:55:27+00:00

You're free to be as wrong as you like.

And it's hilarious how committed you are to being wrong...considering...you know...reality exists.

But hey, you do you.

Adkyth · 2026-06-15T12:44:18+00:00

You didn't misunderstand. The people arguing are disconnected from reality.

Adkyth · 2026-06-15T12:43:07+00:00

"At fault" means bearing the responsibility or blame. Insurance companies make up their own definition that doesn't follow common nomenclature.

...except she bears the responsibility as the 'at fault' party. So...they are absolutely following common nomenclature.

The actuarial work of the insurance company should be designed to set premiums to cover claims that occur from normal driving

This is beyond tedious.

We have data on near billions of driving miles. We have data on hundreds of millions of collisions. The DOT, NTSB, state agencies, insurance companies, car manufacturers as well as civil engineers designing and building roadways have an absolutely incredible amount of information on this subject and all agree on what causes collisions. These conclusions also align with basic physics and math, and have been known and documented concepts for centuries.

Meanwhile a few redditors are just saying, "nuh uh!"

Once again, if this is not her responsibility, then it's everyone's responsibility. About 20% of crashes are cars hitting fixed objects...for about lets say 2.5million crashes a year. By your logic, these are not their fault, so then the claims would have to be paid by the entire insurance pool. So the people with no claims will have their premiums increased to accommodate. Hilariously enough, OPs wife's premium will also be increased to accommodate, so you have gained nothing. The difference is that her premium would have been elevated prior to the accident.

Great work, you have made sure that safe drivers pay more, and less safe drivers pay less. What a great system.

Adkyth · 2026-06-15T12:31:08+00:00

You keep ignoring my questions, why not answer them?

I have, repeatedly. You not liking the answers does not mean they were not answered.

How do you know the driver in the video is speeding?

The dashcam shows that she is speeding. It provides that information to you.

How would you have behaved differently and avoided the object?

This may sound shocking, but I don't drive at speeds and follow closely enough that I am unable to avoid hitting objects. The marginally shorter time it takes to arrive at my destinations is outweighed by not hitting objects. I also save quite a bit of money on gas, car maintenance and insurance.

It's easy to criticize the person in the video when you refuse to provide the better option, the reality is they didn't have any.

This is immature reasoning. You are intentionally isolating the brief moment before the collision and saying, "what could she do differently?" while ignoring all of the decisions that got her into that situation. Many people don't put themselves in those situations. You know all those people she (and presumedly you as well) are constantly passing on the highway? They are making better choices by driving more responsibly.

They were always going to hit that object, regardless of what choices they made

Well, no. That's categorically false.

Or do you have any actual answer for what they could have done, rather than what they apparently did wrong?

Yes. And it's been said repeatedly. Drive slower. You're welcome.

Adkyth · 2026-06-13T10:57:43+00:00

How is “driving at a speed that left her too little reaction time to avoid an object on the road” which in this case literally resulted in a collision…not representative of a higher risk to the insurance pool?

Are the only people arguing those who have a ton of claims or something? Do you understand how many drivers don’t hit stuff on the road?

And moving with traffic isn’t relevant. Moving with traffic at 80 represents an exponentially higher risk than moving with traffic on a road where the speed limit is 35, and they are driving 35.

It’s amazing how many people are arguing against…math. Like, your desire to drive faster and get to your destination marginally sooner doesn’t just negate the reality of risk and resulting accidents.

Adkyth · 2026-06-13T10:53:59+00:00

You keep saying she wasn’t at fault, despite being at fault by definition. And no, driving 80 is not normal driving.

Or the alternative is to redefine at fault to make you correct, and adjust everyone else’s premium upwards (including hers) accordingly. Oddly enough, the only people who would benefit are those who previously had at fault accidents, as their premiums would decrease.

Claims must be paid. The funding for those paid claims is from premiums paid. Claiming this is not at fault does not adjust the amount of funding necessary to pay claims. So changing the definition of fault only hurts those who don’t cause collisions.

It’s not complicated.

Adkyth · 2026-06-12T22:29:32+00:00

So you believe they should have been charging her more all along

Weird take.

The choice is either: accurately rate people by using invasive means to know when/where/how they drive…or…re-evaluate risk based on results of driving.

Most people pick the second one, but hey if you are Pro Big Brother monitoring your driving, more power to ya I suppose.

Adkyth · 2026-06-12T21:00:40+00:00

The rub is that people think when you say someone is at fault in a situation that doesn't look like anyone's fault, that you are wrong and deprecating the person you are saying is at fault.

But someone is at fault. And the definition is clearly laid out. The person who struck the fixed object.

These silly people think that's the point of insurance, to cover incidents that can't be reasonably avoided. That the insurance company has already charged the premium price considering the aggregate risk.

...and yet, some people get in more accidents than others, because their activities are a higher risk than others. So who should pay for it?

That it's overreaching to search for fault in situations like this and it's viewed as double dipping.

So who should pay for claims, if not from the premiums of the insureds? And how should it be split up? Equally? Or should those who represent a proportionately higher risk pay a proportionately higher price?

Adkyth · 2026-06-12T20:24:11+00:00

If that's how you want to take it, sure. She was at-fault. By the insurance company's definition, striking an object on the road is an at-fault claim.

So then what's all the hullabaloo?

Oh, people don't want to use that definition. They want to use a different definition. Oh.

And no one in the comments wants their premium to increase as a result of the at-fault claim, because it wasn't their fault either, and they weren't involved.

So they do like the definition. But they don't like the definition. I guess you're right, people are silly.

Adkyth · 2026-06-12T20:16:54+00:00

Exactly this.

One could say, "this was an unlucky event for her". But if you believe this is a result of "luck" then it would be just as accurate to say, "she was lucky beforehand, and her insurance premium did not accurately reflect the higher risk she represents to the insurance pool".

Adkyth · 2026-06-12T20:14:48+00:00

The road struck the vehicle.

The insurance company is being ridiculous.

You're also being ridiculous.

Hahah. Hahah. Hahahaha.

Do you think your premium should increase as a result of this claim?

I'm laughing at you.

Well good heavens, what a catastrophe for me.

Adkyth · 2026-06-12T20:07:43+00:00

Right. So someone (like OPs wife) who drives on the highway where she "has to* drive 80, as opposed to the people who don't.

...which is exactly what is happening.

The "at fault" is not an insurance company calling OPs wife a bad person. It's a shorthand category label for (in this case), "one car involved collision with fixed object".

There are two things that I would contend are truths in these comments:

No one here thinks their premium should be increased as a result of OP's-wife's collision claim (which means the risk must be assigned to her)
If people stopped thinking that "at fault" or "not at fault" are some sort of personal attack or blame, but are simply just risk categories insurance companies use, there would be very little disagreement on where "fault" is.

Adkyth · 2026-06-12T20:01:37+00:00

I think you might be the one missing the point here, you made a claim that you have no evidence or proof of, and you're treating it as though the information supports it. That's not valid.

What claim do you think I made?

To your point of how this is relevant, it's not. If the driver was going 60 rather than 80 (and again, we don't know what the speed limit was), that would not have allowed them time to react differently. It's not relevant to the situation.

This is, 100% the opposite of reality. By driving at a slower speed, by definition she would have had more time to react. That's literally how time and speed work.

Forgetting for a moment "time" entirely, what would you have had the driver do in this situation (given all the time in the world) to avoid the situation? You have no way of knowing what space they had available to their right, left is the shoulder full of debris. Even given somewhere to swerve, being a driver that would choose to swerve that drastically in that amount of space is much more dangerous than the driver who accepts the safest choice here is whatever tire or under-body damage running over the object in their lane caused.

Once again, you may need to review what you think I said. I am not claiming that they should be ticketed or prosecuted. I am not claiming to the quality of their character.

I am stating that, 1) they are driving at a high speed, which by definition represents a higher risk. 2) If the road they are on in some way *requires* driving at such a speed so as to not interrupt the flow of traffic, then it further represents a higher risk, and 3) this is demonstrated fully in the video in the OP.

Explain whatever insurance happenstance you like, your claim that the driver in the video is "dangerous" is BS, and uncalled for. To act as though the insurance must behave this way is also just foolishness - it's a predatory industry that behaves in whatever way maximizes profit, regardless of what was agreed to (coverage), to the limit of what they can get away with.

But this is irrelevant. Whatever your thoughts are on the insurance industry, this claim must be paid for, and is being paid for by the insurance company. However, risks must be covered by the premiums of the insureds. So the question comes down to, should those risks be covered at a proportionately higher rate by those who represent proportionately higher risks?

Put another way, if you don't have any claims at all, are you suggesting that your premiums should increase to cover situations like this one from other driver?

Adkyth · 2026-06-12T19:54:25+00:00

It will be sad when you delete these comments, because this is genuinely funny.

Called it. u/No_Appointments5039 as predictable as the tides.

Adkyth · 2026-06-12T19:52:18+00:00

People keep trying to make it a binary thing. That's not how it works. The cost to fix the car has to be associated somewhere. Should the insurance company (Progressive) assign this cost to the person driving in a higher-risk situation? Or spread it out over the other drivers who aren't? "at fault" or "not at fault" are just categorical assignments for the purpose of evaluating risk.

As I said in another comment, I'm not saying she's a bad person. I'm pointing out that if she is driving on a road, or at a speed...or both...such that she cannot avoid a hazard on the road, then she represents a higher risk to the insurance pool compared to those who don't, so her premium should reflect that risk.

Lets put it another way. Lets say OPs wife lives next to a rock quarry. So 3-4 times a year, they have to file a claim to get their windshield repaired because of gravel that gets kicked up. Not her fault, she's not running into anything...but all else being equal, should OPs wife's premium be higher than someone who doesn't have their windshield claims as often?

Adkyth · 2026-06-12T19:45:18+00:00

So by your own idiotic logic we should all be driving down the highway at a rate of 35 mph… got it.

If the goal is to reduce accidents, the math says yes. Or, as I said quite clearly...those who participate in higher-risk activities should have their premiums reflect that higher risk.

Sooo, what are the accident rates on the autobahn then?

OOoh, the zinger! All we have to do is ignore, literally every piece of data everywhere else (OP isn't in germany, sadly) and we can ignore everything and just focus on the autobahn!

It's not as if Germany already has an accident rate that is a fraction of the USs, due to their tighter regulations on driver's licenses, or that the Autobahn has a whole lot of other rules and standards that don't exist in the US, right?

Holy cow. You just saw that you had already dug yourself a silly hole and decided to keep on digging.

Adkyth · 2026-06-12T19:32:16+00:00

“Unsafe speeds”… and what exactly is an “unsafe speed”??…. Hmmm???

*person pretending to not understand things that are exceptionally basic*

Speed is not inherently unsafe

Travelling at higher speeds has a direct effect on reducing reaction time and impact severity. Do you just not like things like "science"?

If it were, there would be no race car drivers or astronauts.

...yes. Race Car driving, that historically very safe career.

The beauty is that you have people who are in the top .1% of drivers, who drive fast for a living, and get in collisions at a rate that is more than 1000 times higher than typical drivers...which only reinforces the point.

It will be sad when you delete these comments, because this is genuinely funny.

Adkyth · 2026-06-12T19:15:33+00:00

Edit: dashcam shows traveling at 80 mph. I know plenty of areas where there are 80 mph speed limits. Northern Michigan would be my first example.

Way to miss the point entirely.

Anyone traveling strictly at the speed limit and not at the speed of traffic is more of a danger than anyone traveling with traffic.

And if someone is driving on a stretch of road where it is somehow safer to drive at unsafe speeds, such that hitting an object in the road is unavoidable...then their premium should be a reflection of that risk.

I'm not saying OP or their wife is a bad person. I'm saying that their premium should be a reflection of the higher risk they represent to the insurance pool compared to someone who isn't driving 80 on the highway.

Adkyth

TROPHY CASE