Hey I have a data science background.
This is good and entertaining fluff, but if you know what you're looking at, there are important things missing and some things that look good but don't make sense.
I give him 4.8/5 for making it look important.
For example: He has two time series (S&P500 and the bonds) and he compares them to many possible offsets. This is called cross-correlation analysis. It's a real thing, but it's also notorious for overfitting the data and showing spurious relationships if you misuse it like OP dies here. When you test many different offsets, you increase the probability of finding a high correlation *somewhere*, purely out of random chance. This is kind of like flipping a coin and getting heads 10 times in a row; it's impressive if you only flipped the coin 10 times, but much less exciting if you flipped it 10 million times. You were bound to get a 10-head steak at some point. An overfit predictor is one that performs very well on the historical data used to find it, but poorly on new, unseen data. If you select the single best lag based purely on the highest R-value from your historical test (precisely what OP did here), you risk overfitting to random noise that exists in the sample, but isn't truly predictive. And that's almost surely been done here and the validation should have been on showing that the model isn't overfit.
To validate a model like that you wouldn't back-test (what OP does). Some things you could do are split the data into in and out of sample (e.g. make the model based on only the first X days in the series, and then judge it based on its ability to predict the data after day X). You should/could take steps to remove seasonality or trends within the time series first (which we already damn well know the stock market is seasonal, so him using untransformed values is most definitely increasing his calculated correlation). It would also be good to do bootstrapping to check statistical significance, instead of just p value.
But it is very entertaining. OP probably also has a data background, to be knowing what to do to specifically torture the data this way.
No, selling the option is more valuable than exercising 99.9% of time. The value of the option reflects his buy price vs current value of stock. Exercising is bad, because you are saying I don’t want to get paid market rate for the option. I just want to buy x shares a y strike.
I hope you aren't serious bro... 90% chance you will lose it all. Micron looks solid as ram prices probably won't be coming down. Precious metals (and industrial metals) don't appear to be slowing down (they will probably crash the moment you buy calls). Gold/silver miners have been weirdly underperforming gold/silver itself, so they may catch up in a sudden rally. Hard to say though. Rocket lab looks good until space x ipo hype dies down.
Get longer dated calls or leaps to avoid large volatility decay if the market goes sideways next week. Deep itm to play it as safe as possible, though less crazy win potential.
You will almost certainly lose money. Even if you win big on pure chance the next time you can lose it all. It's almost certainly not worth it.
Rather do one obvious play per week than a coin flip play per day. If i had to buy calls at gun point i would do micron or silver but they can absolutely go down or even crash randomly.
“Whats kinda cool about this is that we’re at a point where the whole Epstein thing isn’t actually about Epstein. It’s about do we have a sovereign country where the people have control.
More and more people are realizing we absolutely are not.”
-@miseschair X
Well said. Silver and and Gold will out last the dollar. Seems like the whole government apparatus has hit the proverbial iceberg.