I have recently written this answer that in my opinion provided a very concrete help with the OP's problem, based on the Stock Repair Option Strategy. None of numerous highly voted answers even remotely mentioned this useful idea that any serious investor should be aware of.
To my great surprise, my answer was accused to be a spam for providing a link to the relevant description page by Chicago Option Exchange, the world's major option exchange! Not only calling this link a spam makes absolutely no sense to me, but in contrast - this is the best and cleanest education source I've seen. In fact, I would challenge anyone to find a better source!
It is not like my answer consisted of that only link. With 8 written paragraphs I would say it was slightly more than that.
It is not like that link, if broken in the future, would reduce the quality of the answer. Any basic "googling" that broadly used term (Stock Repair Strategy) would provide sufficient information, even if not so clean and condensed.
It is not like my answer would improve a lot by copying any explanation to that broadly used strategy, for which there are numerous much better sources easily to be found. In contrast, my answer provided exactly the supplemental information.
The "arguments" as to why my answer was a spam I learned from the discussion were:
It was not clear how my answer was related to the question
I might be affiliated to the organisation linked
The essence of my answer is basically a complicated way of gambling
Now I have to ask:
Can these arguments be due to anything other than lack of basic knowledge plus lack of interest to learn about stock options, laziness to spend 1 min reading that page prominently explaining the reasons, and ignorance in general?
And - the main question - how should I respond to such judgemental accusations?
I have added that description as quote in my answer, which apparently was all the answer was missing. It is, however, so prominently displayed on the page linked or can be found by googling, that I have to say at the risk of repeating myself :) - basing any judgement on the lack of that can only be due to basic ignorance and laziness.
I suppose what offended me was perceived lack of respect for the time it took me to write this relatively long answer. In my opinion, there is a big difference between posting a 1-2 sentence spam link and a longer answer with detailed explanation. I would challenge anyone to show me many true spam answers of that size! Even a single one :)
While I appreciate the annoyance of seeing spam, I consider myself capable of identifying and dismissing those without any moderator help. What appears spam to some, can be useful to others. And it something potentially useful was marked as spam and/or deleted by careless moderator, that effectively deprives all the community from that chance to learn something new and useful. Not mentioning the discouragement for the author to share further useful information.
There is a lot to lose for the community to mistakenly mark potentially useful answers as spam and I disagree with the attitude to take this lightly. There is much less harm simply doing nothing and leaving it at that.
Now speaking about the CBOE site, it does indeed, unfortunately, has fair bit of advertising. However, I have to ask:
How much of a freeloader does one want to be? The fellas work hard to write a clean and simple presentation, nicely structured with useful examples! All given away for free! How else are they supposed to earn money?
So every site using 3rd party advertising is to be regarded as spam??? Are we not eliminating 99% of internet? :)
And further, those ads can actually be useful to some people! If not - why would anyone pay for them?
And in case of CBOE - at the risk of repeating myself, I have to insist that the page displays the core information as prominent as can only be possible. Despite of the 2 (admittedly annoying) ads, that information is in no way obscured. It takes under 30 seconds to read that useful information to decide if the page is useful!
Another aspect that I find puzzling is how my answer is specific to the US options. Is it? Aren't options equally used everywhere?
In my opinion, a less harmful approach from the side of the moderator, would be to raise a suitable question in the comments and give the author a chance to answer it, before mentioning any suspicion or accusation or anything negative whatsoever.
If you meet a person in a pub in a cozy environment and suspect he wants to sell you something - are you going to stand up and loudly announce your suspicion for everyone in the pub to know? I presume not. But what happened here is exactly that if you just think about it.
Another thing I perceive as ignorance is calling an option strategy "gambling" for no mentioned reason. Are options gambling? Are stocks? Is this an opinion of a moderator in this forum?
I have further explored the site and found numerous high quality expert level discussions of options. It makes even me even more surprised to see a moderator calling a known proved option strategy, used by many traders, a "gambling".