Parable Of The Talents

I tested every indicator for 10 years: MACD, Bollinger Bands, Stochastics, Fibonacci, Volume Profile, Order Flow... After $83K in losses, I only use TWO: 1. RSI (tells me when to enter) 2. Moving Averages (tells me the trend) That's it. Everything else is noise. My 3-rule system for 95% win rate: Rule 1: Only sell puts on red days (RSI <50) Rule 2: Target 5% return in 30 days Rule 3: Close at 50% profit (5-7 days) Simple systems win. Complex systems lose. Every time. Like + Comment "TWO" and I will send over a free training video.

BREAKING: Claude now has the ability to pull live options chains and Greeks through a free API It structures cash-secured puts, spreads, LEAPS, covered calls, and poor man's covered calls using real data Here's how to set it up and 5 real trade setups it just built:

The "no lose" scenario most traders miss: Sell put on TQQQ at $50 strike. Collect $500 premium. Scenario 1: TQQQ stays above $50 → Keep $500. Never buy stock. → Do it again Monday. Scenario 2: TQQQ drops to $45 → Own 100 shares at $50 → Real cost: $45 (premium offset) → Sell covered calls monthly → Lower cost basis weekly → Bounce = profit Scenario 1: Win. Scenario 2: Also win. The system doesn't allow losing. That's not luck. That's math.

After years of selling cash-secured puts, here's the system that works for me consistently: The setup I look for: - Stock on my watchlist that I'd own for years - RSI oversold on daily, ideally weekly confirming - Price at or near meaningful support levels - High IV environment so premiums are worth the risk - Tight bid-ask spreads and strong open interest - 30 DTE, ~0.20 delta - Strike at or below support where buyers have historically stepped in The rules: - Close at 50% profit and redeploy. The annualized math crushes holding to expiration. - If assigned, flip to covered calls above cost basis. That's not a loss. That's the wheel working. - Premium collected gets reinvested into the next CSP or used to DCA into long-term holdings. - Base hits compound. I'm not swinging for home runs. Names I'm selling puts on right now: $IREN - high IV, AI infrastructure thesis I have deep conviction in $HOOD - extremely liquid chain, friendly premiums, would happily own more shares $ONDS - defense/drone demand accelerating, elevated premiums on pullbacks $SOFI - $1B quarterly revenue, CEO buying stock, premiums are rich after the selloff $HIMS - telehealth platform with GLP-1 tailwind, elevated IV makes premiums attractive What I've learned to avoid: - Selling into earnings, CPI, or Fed days. Binary events are not my game. - Names with wide spreads or low volume. Illiquidity silently destroys your edge. - Stocks I don't actually want to own. Even if I'm "sure" I won't get assigned. - Entering without a clear support level on the chart. No setup, no trade. I wait for red days on quality names and collect premium like rent. NFA DYOR

5 stocks I'll sell puts on forever 💸 These names pay premium AND I'd happily own them: 1. TQQQ – Tech 3x. Volatile enough to print weekly. 2. SOXL – Semis 3x. AI demand keeps it strong. 3. NVDL – Nvidia 2x. Best risk/reward on the list. 4. TNA – Small caps 3x. Underrated premium machine. 5. TSLL – Tesla 2x. Best used when discounted. 📈 High IV. Strong trends. Quality names. Sell the puts. Collect the premium. Repeat.

Top 10 things that made me $200K last year: 1. Sold puts every single red day 2. Closed every trade at 50% profit 3. Never traded earnings 4. Kept 30% cash at all times 5. Only used 3 core tickers 6. Checked IV before every trade 7. Followed green EMA clouds only 8. Funded LEAPs with house money 9. Scaled position sizes slowly 10. Never broke a single rule Rules aren't restrictions. They're the reason I win. Comment "WIN" to learn how to get all my trades daily.

Apparently the whole 5g of Creatine daily Bed by 10:00 230g of Protein Lifting heavy 6X a week Cardio 4x week Magnesium & CBD+CBG before bed Full vitamin and peptide stack Whole Foods & Collagen Peptides Skincare routine Phone on silent No alcohol Actually works So in that note, night yall.

5 rules I follow that most traders ignore: 1. Never sell options with IV below 50% 📊 2. Never trade on green days 📈 3. Never hold through earnings 📅 4. Never risk more than 25% per trade 💰 5. Never break rules 1-4 🚫 Simple rules. Ruthless execution. 96% win rate. Rules aren't optional. They're everything.

@grok @TheGorf @PhantomphreakE @ulricheder @TheDefiantGhost @grok who is Nick Szabo and is he still alive

PhantomphreakE If I had to guess from the full evidence—linguistic forensics, conceptual overlaps like Bit Gold, early forum activity, and cypherpunk ties—Nick Szabo fits best. His prior work on digital currency, writing quirks, and timeline align tightly without the contradictions seen in other candidates. Still, it's speculation; Satoshi designed it to stay hidden. No definitive proof after 15+ years.

John McAfee on Satoshi Nakamoto's identity: "Let me give you some clues." "In Satoshi's white paper, every word that has dual spellings for American and British English is British. It is all British." "Every sentence is followed by two spaces. Now that's a minority choice in most, but two spaces." "There are only two that can be accused who were British, and only one of those has two spaces in every one of his papers." "Figure it out, people. It'll take you 15 minutes."

@BillAckman @X Emma Dickson is a bad person

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

@TJTheWheelDeal You are perfect bro, you want some mass

@ParableTalent 5’8”

It was nice to see that folks who hadn’t seen me in a while notice my weight loss journey. Now I’m more motivated to get under 200 asap and then possibly 185. I’ll definitely stop there. I don’t ever want to be skinny again.

Them: $STRC 11.5% yield! Actual companies and indexes are a thing of the past! Me: Where’s the yield come from hmm? Them: The sophisticated arbitrage of Bitcoin CAGR vs pref yield, obviously. Me: But Bitcoin didn’t even double the last cycle high and is where it was 5 years ago or worse when adjusting for inflation. Perhaps the CAGR will never return to 30-50% as it’s clearly dropping faster than most expected. Them:

@Asdull1Muhammed @grok @FurkanGozukara Grok answer the question

@grok @FurkanGozukara @grok When was this plane made and how much does it cost to make in 2026 with inflation in mind if it cost 500 million dollars when it was made?

Biggest loss of US in Iran war confirmed Hey @grok why this airplane costs almost a billion USD and why it is biggest loss of the war? Prince Sultan Air Base, E-3 Sentry AWACS completely obliterated

Everyone talks about 'risk management'. Here's what it actually looks like: If RSI is 70+? Stay in cash. No trades. If RSI is 60? Sell 25% of your normal position size. If RSI is 50? Sell 50%. If RSI is 40? Sell 75%. If RSI is 30? Go 100% in.  This isn't just theory. It's how I size into my biggest trades for the year which don't happen often.

@grok @Wealthonomic @Invest_Brandon Can you do this on Robinhood brokerage

Portfolio secured puts (PSPs) use your existing margin account portfolio (stocks/ETFs) as collateral instead of reserving 100% cash like CSPs. This keeps capital invested while generating premium. How: 1. Open margin account + options level 3/4 approval for naked puts. 2. Build diversified holdings (e.g., broad ETFs). 3. Sell OTM puts on assets you're bullish on. Size positions small (e.g., 5-10% portfolio risk max, ratios checked). 4. Broker calculates margin (often 15-25% of strike value via Reg T/portfolio margin). Premium collected; if assigned, buy shares on margin. Strong risk rules let it handle big drops. Not advice—DYOR, paper trade first.

I'll never criticize the new investor making $50/month selling options... Unless they do covered calls or cash secured puts... Then I will. (those strategies are a trap) Most new investors fall victim to this because it's viewed by the herd as "safe" and "low capital" But in reality, it's a way to cap upside on a bullish company (covered call) & a way to sit on a bunch of cash when you are bullish on a company (cash secured put) I haven't met a single person that made millions selling CCs or CSPs... But I have personally made millions selling portfolio secured puts, not cash secured. Ratios in check. Risk managed. Can easily survive 50% market crash. It works.

Stop trading every day, learn to trade only when it matters. The framework that tripled my returns: • Green clouds + RSI 50 → small position • Green clouds + RSI 40 → normal position • Green clouds + RSI 30 → aggressive position • Red clouds + any RSI → zero positions • VIX above 30 → maximum aggression Less trades. Better entries. More profit.

@daremarket 231

the number was 427. nobody got it. let's run it back: $200 double or nothing. guess a number between 1 and 1,000

I only sell puts on red days. Selling on green days: • Stock at $100, sell $95 put • Stock drops to $92 • Underwater immediately Selling on red days: • Stock drops to $95, sell $90 put • Stock bounces to $98 • Close in 3 days Same premium. Better entry. Higher win rate. I went from 60% to 95% win rate just by waiting for red days.

The 3/5/30 rule made me consistently profitable: 3 = Only trade 3-5 leveraged ETFs you'd own forever (I use TQQQ, SOXL, GGLL, BITX) 5 = Target 5% return per trade (achievable, repeatable, compounds fast) 30 = Only sell 30-day options (sweet spot for premium vs risk) Before this rule: chaos, stress, small wins, big losses. After: Peace, consistency, $15K-$47K monthly. Which do you prefer?