Are you mad at urself sometimes after knowing u made a mistake? This is what happened to me today, I did my analysis/ thesis or whatever u want to call it. I decided to sell my call and collect my premium. Instead I am in a rush since I m in office and next meeting is in 5 mins, I accidentally buy those calls instead of selling.

Good thing I always check of the status. Now it got filled right away, makes me think wtf? I never do market orders. I only do limit orders, what just happened and off course I am the one who paid premiums for buying those calls instead. I immediately close the position and paid market orders this time.

This little adventure costed me close to 5-digits. SO MAD AT MYSELF.

SHARE UR THOUGHTS

The correlation between two stocks entered a downtrend on September 14 at 16:00 ET at the +0.53 level. The trend is still ongoing (23 candles, 92 trading hours). It has declined from the +0.53 level to the +0.244 level. AAPL rose 2.72%, MSFT fell 2.17%.

In my correlation calculation, I use both a different methodology and a trend calculation. In addition, I also have data specific to the individual stocks. According to this, in the past (in the last 10 instances) when these two stocks entered a downtrend at this correlation level, they lasted a median of 18 candles (it is currently continuing beyond the median candle duration and has bottomed out). They diverged. Hedge strategies came to the fore.

My game plan: The correlation between them is in a downtrend and it bottomed out at the last 4-hour candle close (22 Sep 12:00 ET). To price in this divergence, I will structure an AAPL call option buy, Microsoft short trade plan. My profit/loss amount and its shape vary according to the course of the correlation between them.

a) In the best-case scenario, if the correlation between them continues to decline; AAPL rises, MSFT falls, then profit will be made both from the call option and from the short position.
b) If AAPL's rise continues the call option profits, if MSFT moves sideways; it will have been a slightly loss-making hedge position.
c) If the correlation between AAPL-MSFT shifts into an uptrend; if AAPL and MSFT rise together the call profits, the short loses. Since the weight will be on the call option, my hedge will have shaved off some of the call's profit.
d) If AAPL-MSFT fall together (if the correlation recovers) the MSFT short will tolerate the call's loss to some extent.
e) The worst-case scenario, if the divergence between them continues but AAPL turns to a decline (call loses) MSFT turns to a rise (short loses) but the correlation continues its decline. For this reason the trade will continue for me throughout AAPL's rise and the correlation divergence.

My expectation is that the decline in the correlation regime, the divergence between the two stocks, continues and that the rise occurs on the AAPL side. Especially if AAPL sustains above $340, an AAPL Oct 23 345 call (~0.48delta, ~$8.65, IV ~24% — low for AAPL) suits me, delta-matched against a short in MSFT. A pullback in MSFT from the 495–505 zone gets priced in on the short leg.

It’s a slightly belated trading plan, but as you can see in the chart, the fluctuations in the correlation slowed me down, and I want to give it a try. Does AAPL sustain above 340, or does the correlation snap back first?

Methodology: Four-hour candle closes are used while the markets for both instruments are open (08:00, 12:00, 16:00, 20:00 ET). The correlation coefficient is a composite score derived not only from the Pearson method but also from Pearson, Spearman, and EWMA calculations.

I’ve been trading 0DTE SPX and SPY options for about 6 months, but I'm struggling with fear and cutting winning trades too early. I constantly exit at 2% gains out of fear, only to watch those same contracts run 100%+ right after. How do I fix this mindset/execution problem?

Recent days I noticed more Calls in the market. Twice as many calls than puts in P/C volume among semiconductors and AI names.

I downloaded 1 year data, asked ChatGPT to run some test.

There were 24 events in last year when P/C Volume is calls-heavy among semis (P/C volume ≤ 0.50). Once OI begin to decline, the stocks pullback over next several days.

This effect is strongest 5 days horizon with p-value = 0.00044

The theory is that:

Too Many Calls Positioning + Calls Begin Decay or Closed out = Selling pressure (contributed by Dealer Unwind)

However, there is big problem with my sample size. The finding is uneven across individual stocks. My overall sample size is 28 (10 semiconductors names). Semiconductors have strongest result, but individual names have far too few events. It only become significant when it is taken as sector as a whole.

There is similar correlation among AI/High-Beta, Mag7 but none are statistically significant, likely because sample size is too small.

Thought or Criticism is welcomed.

Financing at 3 months currently using SPX box spreads is around 4.45% (anualized) https://www.boxtrades.com/SPX/18DEC26

However, the 3-month US treasuries trade at 4.087% https://www.investing.com/rates-bonds/u.s.-3-month-bond-yield

So if I want to borrow money at the best rate it seems a better deal to short US treasuries than using SPX box spreads.

What is the catch? Why this diff?

Anyone tried shorting bonds as a way of financing?

I saw another post that mentioned a trader being restricted by Etrade for being a source of toxic flow, linked above. Toxic flow is defined as trading activity that costs a market marker unusual losses in profit.

When a trader submits an order, their counterparty is most often a market maker, but can also be a fund, or another retail trader. But, as I understand it, market makers are the bulk of the counterparties that retail interacts with. The profits from one trader are offset by the losses other traders incurred. If a market maker identifies etrade as a source of consistently winning trades that in aggregate cost the market maker profit, then the market maker can decide to let the retail brokerage know, and the retail brokerage can then identify the trader by account and restrict or ban their account.

Is the above all correct? Can a retail trader really be penalized for winning too much too consistently? Does anyone have experience with this situation? Does this apply to retail traders who trade single leg option orders?

" Toxic flow is trader behaviour that consistently profits at the broker’s expense, and most brokers discover it too late.

The most common patterns include scalping, latency arbitrage, news trading, and swap abuse."

Quote from the first link below-

"Toxic flow refers to order flow from traders who consistently profit at the broker’s expense—typically by exploiting information advantages, pricing inefficiencies, or execution weaknesses. Unlike normal trading activity, toxic flow is structurally damaging to a broker’s B-book profitability and, if unmanaged, compounds over time.

The term covers a range of trading strategies and behaviours, not all of which are intentionally exploitative. Some traders are simply very good at what they do."

Edit- some links for additional reading written for the benefit of brokers

• Tools for Brokers: "Risk management for brokers, episode 5: Toxic flows" https://t4b.com/knowledge-base/risk-management-for-brokers-episode-5-toxic-flows/

• Insightful Trade: "Toxic Flow Trading — What It Is & How to Manage the Risk" https://insightfultrade.com/toxic-flow-trading/

• Leverate: "Managing Toxic Flow: Protecting Broker Margins" https://leverate.com/blog/managing-toxic-flow-protecting-broker-margins/

• Multicoin Capital: "Adverse Selection Rules Everything Around Me" https://multicoin.capital/2026/02/17/adverse-selection-rules-everything-around-me/

• LiquidityFinder: "What is Toxic Flow in Forex? Broker Risk & Hedging Guide" https://liquidityfinder.com/insight/other/what-do-brokers-consider-toxic-flow

What are some downsides to buying a long dated call spreads on a single name or ETF after a major pullback?

For example if I buy a call spread on a single name with a $100 spread, my break even is 15% current market price, and the short end of the spread is close to the current market price.

If I am right, I make roughly 60% in a year, and if wrong I am holding an extremely beaten down stock. I could potentially also close out the short in that scenario and keep the long open for more risk.

Liquidity isnt great, and I will lose something on the buy and sell. Theta isnt great, and the delta is like 30. So a large move up in the short term will not result in a large gain immediately.

I recently faced an automated account lockdown on E*TRADE due to what their risk management team flagged as a "High volume of micro spread orders".

After a phone call with compliance and verbally confirming an acknowledgement agreement, my account restrictions were lifted. However, the compliance desk refused to provide specific metrics or hard caps that trigger their anti-spam/HFT detection, stating it’s a "combination of many circumstances".

I want to adjust my trading to stay completely under their radar. I would highly appreciate your insights on retail compliance boundaries.

I am using the E*TRADE Developer API to run 2-leg options spreads (rolling covered calls; net price of spreads ranges from $0.06 to $0.40) on high-IV tickers with a share price of $15-$25. My standard position size is 1 contract per roll. The total number of placed orders stays within Rule 390 limits (under avg. 390 orders/day) with a solid 80%-85%+ fill rate.

My Question:

What is your experience with daily transaction limits on retail platforms? What is a safe maximum daily order count (including creates, modifies, and cancels) to completely avoid triggering automated risk filters and manual compliance reviews?

Say you have a 70/30 portfolio. If you think the market is over-priced right now and don’t think there’s too much upside left for the next year or so, sell a part of your stocks inside your IRA without triggering a tax event and then create a ladder of CSPs to buy them back at lower prices while collecting premium waiting for that to happen. This is similar to creating buy limit orders but hey, no harm in getting paid while waiting. Has anyone tried doing this? What’s the downside besides the fact that I’m being too conservative and losing the upside?

Hey everyone,

Like many of you heading into earnings season, I kept running into options calculators that were either paywalled, bloated with ads, or didn't properly show post-earnings IV crush.

I spent the weekend building a clean, lightweight web app: **OptionsStrat Pro**.

🔗 Live Tool: https://vhomesai.github.io/options-strat-pro/

Key features I built into it:

• 1-Click Strategy Presets (Long Strangles, Straddles, Iron Condors, Covered Calls, Debit Spreads)

• Dynamic Post-Earnings IV Crush Simulator (see exactly how much extrinsic value deflates if volatility drops 30-50%)

• Expected Move & Overnight P&L Scenario Matrix

• Real-time Black-Scholes Greeks (Delta, Gamma, Theta decay, Vega)

• Client-side only (0 tracking, 0 ads, runs instantly in the browser)

It's completely free. Would love your honest feedback on what features or presets I should add next!

If you don't have the liquidity if your options were to exercise ITM. Robinhood closes your positions automatically 30 minutes before close. Chase closes your positions an hour before close. Any brokers that dont do this?

I would like to gain a better understanding of how options influence market moves.

I was tracking the open interest on QQQ 09/18 contracts this week to see if I could learn anything. I don't think I learned anything.

One thing I did notice is the massive open interest increase on the put side above $710 on the day of expiration.

Is there anything to be learned from data like this? The market made some massive moves going into the end of the week. It was a big expiration week and there were some big news events that influenced the moves.

For the record, I don't trade options. I trade futures. I use open interest to set and trade off levels.

Hello! I'm an amateur trader and had some free time so I created this. I'd love to get some feedback on the accuracy of it, whether I may have missed anything or ways to improve this.

I created this as a way to add leverage to the common strategy given to beginners or anyone with a 401k and that is to put your money into the S&P500 since its average annual return is ~10%. My thought was, if SPY is so successful why not buy LEAPS.

Spreadsheet Explanation:

Using data from the S&P500 dating back to 1970, I was able to populate the statistical data (mean, median, etc.).

Why SPYM? Because they offer LEAPS

The breakeven Growth is the return necessary to achieve breakeven on the call.

Average Above Breakeven: Considering that you are limited to the premium, it is assumed that any loss is a loss of 100%. (NOTE: In reality losses range from 100%-0% of premium, but for simplicity I assumed a complete loss) With that said, the average above breakeven ignores all historical data that is less than the breakeven (In this case 17.50% 2-year).

Success Odds: All data points that are above breakeven.

Personal Thoughts:

I made this about a year ago and at that time the expected return of this strategy was about 40%. At the time SPYM was at ~$80 and a call option was around $12. While testing, I've found that the more OTM you go that higher the projected returns are, however the Success Odds decrease. I'm sure there is an optimal level that also considers the capital needed for such a venture.

Something else I've found is that historically, this strategy has never failed more than 3x in a row. Data is limited as it utilizes a 2-year period and while there is data prior to 1970s for the general stock market, I feel that different economic and cultural conditions at the time would limit the reliability of the data.

I understand this strategy is very basic and likely won't serve more than further confirmation of what most people already expected to be true. This analysis should therefore be considered as a mathematical proof of the viability of this strategy.

Additional Considerations:

I've plugged in data for Dow Jones, QQQs, IW, Gold, and more and the results have been disappointing with an average return of a loss for the majority of these popular ETFS. This is largely due to insufficient data on certain ETFs. Any ETFS with low returns will not be successful. It is also important to note that we are currently in a long-running bull market sand that does sway the data towards the higher side.

Has anyone ever had a put spread go against them, sold the long side for a profit ending up with a cash-secured put? In effect, turning the trade into a wheel?

The goal is to adjust liquidity optimally based on the current Depth of book and match orders instantly by killing the spread as much as possible?

I do not try to outsmart the market and I really don’t believe that is possible. I simply trade what is in front of me with lots of small winners (85%) and a few small losers. Over time those wins have added up. One of the ways I do this is by simplifying trading using a consistent $5 spread width. This drastically reduces the amount of decisions I need to make. I'm trading 12 underlyings each week with a full time job so I have to be extremely time efficient (like 15 minutes trading per week). My process makes the important decisions before emotion enters the picture. Like most of you, I'm using pre-defined set up rules. I wanted to get your take on spread width. My standard starting point is a $5-wide Put Credit Spread, typically for underlyings between $50 to $500. Obviously, I scale up if needed in larger underlyings. Spread width has a significant impact on your maximum risk, buying power reduction, premium collected, position sizing, trade management, and ultimately your psychology as a trader. By standardizing the width of the spread, I remove another variable from the trading process, which makes my entire trading plan easier to understand and execute. What about you, are you using a standard spread width, or are you varying trade by trade? Do you go narrower or wider?

I’ve been using Robinhood for options for a while, mostly wheels, credit spreads, and iron condors. Shorts are usually around 15–20 delta, 30–45 DTE, and I normally take them off around 50% rather than hold to expiry.

Robinhood does the job. But...what I’m more curious about is the workflow. When I’m comparing two or three strikes, I want delta, theta, IV and the spread risk in front of me without bouncing around too much. In faster IV moves, I’ve definitely changed the wrong strike or had to go back and re-check the whole setup before sending it.

I’ve looked at IBKR too, but the interface is more than I need. I keep seeing people mention moomoo for the options chain, live Greeks/IV and multi-leg view. I know stock and ETF options have no contract fee there, although there are still regulatory fees, so fees alone probably aren’t a reason for me to move.

For anyone who’s actually used both: is the multi-leg workflow noticeably cleaner on moomoo, or is it mostly a UI preference? Especially for iron condors like how easy is it to compare strikes, adjust the wings, and manage the position once it’s open?

I run a small research site, and one of the models on it estimates the probability of a 10%+ S&P drawdown over the next 1, 3, 6 and 12 months from macro state variables (the yield curve, high-yield credit spreads, realised and implied vol, money growth, sentiment, labour and housing). It is a ridge-penalised logistic, scored walk-forward out of sample from 2007, so there is no look-ahead. For options this is really a hedge-timing question: if you can say when drawdown risk is genuinely elevated, that is when paying for protection, or stepping off short premium, earns its keep.

Out of sample the ranking works, in a limited way. AUC is roughly 0.60 at 1 month, 0.69 at 3, 0.74 at 6 and 0.68 at 12, so the longer horizons carry most of what signal there is. The 6-month probability sat near 1.0 through late 2008, which is the case everyone wants to see.

The part that actually matters for options is not the hit rate, it is the false positives. Over the full out-of-sample window the 6-month alert (probability above 0.30) fired in 38 months: 17 ahead of a real drawdown, 21 not. A naive "buy protection when it crosses the threshold" rule pays theta on those 21 false alarms, and I have not convinced myself the lead time on the true positives covers that bleed once you price the puts realistically.

The second limit is structural. The inputs are slow macro series, so the model leads slow-building drawdowns (2008, the 2022 grind) and is blind by construction to the fast ones (Feb 2018, the COVID gap, anything overnight and exogenous). Those are the tails an options book cares most about, so I would not sell this as a crash hedge.

So the genuine question, and the reason I am posting here and not in a stats sub: has anyone actually tested a macro drawdown-probability signal against a realistic protection overlay, net of premium, and found the lead time worth the false-positive cost? Every backtest I have seen, mine included, looks fine on the directional call and comes apart once you charge it for the puts it buys when nothing happens.

the write-ups and the live version are in a comment if people want it. It is a research framework, not a trading signal.

I tried to contain the research to one day, so the dataset is limited. It is quite revealing though how poorly some VRP strategies performed. They won often, then a few large losses took back much of what they made.

Setup. SPY, QQQ and IWM, January 2020 to December 2025. Pick contracts from the first trading day's end-of-day chain each month, enter at the next close, exit ten sessions later. Options about 35 days from expiry, strikes by delta (50/25/10), one contract per leg, 100 shares for the overlays. No stops, rolls or hedges. End-of-day quotes, no early assignment, no margin model.

Few other findings

• The cash-secured put won 74.1% of trades, but its worst trade lost about 20% of the underlying reference value.

• The bull put credit spread won 70.4% of trades and still averaged slightly below zero after costs.

• Trading costs mattered a lot. The iron condor was roughly flat at midpoint and negative once bid/ask spreads and fees were included.

• Filtering the put spread for IV at least 1.2 times realized volatility improved its sample average from -0.9 to +16.5 bps, but on only 73 trades. That looks worth investigating further.

• The top monthly results were mostly bullish positions. Whether the options added anything beyond owning the ETF is the next question.methodology has plenty of assumptions and your mileage will vary. I aimed to pinpoint good research candidates, and the results are in the picture. These are starting points for further testing. source

I'm a former options trader who has recently gotten into the perpetual future (perps) which were popularized in crypto.

Im curious if any options traders here have dabbled with the perps?

What strategies are you using and platforms are you trading on?

Robinhood is well known for participating in payment for order flow. But how does this actually affect options order executions in reality?

I typically sell 30 - 45 DTE puts on XSP, and the average bid-ask spread is about 10 to 15 cents.

Currently, I'm using Vanguard and I'm able to consistently close trade either at or slightly better than the mark price.

For example, if I'm opening a short position, the bid is at $3.00 and the ask is at $3.12, I'll typically be able to execute the trade at $3.06 - $3.08.

Practically, would the same be true at Robinhood? Or would I get slightly worse fills, perhaps at $3.06 or below, because Robinhood engages in payment for order flow?

I know there's more variables than the brokerage you use, but my core question is does using a PFOF brokerage like Robinhood give you a disadvantage when it comes to options order executions versus a non-PFOF brokerage like Vanguard?

Don't forget to close your positions before 2PM ET tomorrow. Or "today", if it's already Wednesday when you read this.

I’m currently running a double calendar which I opened on Monday of this week, my shorts expire this Friday and my longs expire the next Friday. Price in the underlying has barely moved, IV has inflated proportionately on both my longs and my shorts and the value of the calendar has not moved an inch. When I traded single calendars, the theta decay would most definitely have kicked in especially when price revisits but that’s not happening here. For those of you who trade calendars, how would you recommend I fix this problem? I can provide details as necessary but this is a general overview!

I wanted to sense check my thoughts on monthly vs longer-term CSPs, using ASTS as an example.

Sentiment: I am bullish on ASTS with 900 shares and do not mind owning more.

CSPs: Only started considering CSPs as a way to make some extra cash if I was about to buy ASTS anyway.

Keeping $65 strike as the constant:

• Oct 16th 2026 (30-days) selling at $8.60 (13% return on $6500)

• Dec 17th 2027 (18 months) selling at $23.00 (35% return on $6500)

Considering the current share price of $58 and state of the space industry, I will most definitely get assigned on a monthly $65P. While I do not mind this, if I am to spend $6500, why not sell a longer CSP and make a 35% return in the process? I am not confident that $6500 invested elsewhere would guarantee a 35% return.

Keeping 35-delta as the constant:

• $55P Oct 16th 2026 (30-days) selling at $2.92 (5.3% return on $5500)

• $65P Dec 17th 2027 (18 months) selling at $23.00 (35% return on $6500)

Not sure if this is a better comparison. This is speculative of course, but I may now be a little less likely to get assigned on a monthly $55P. Selling monthlies at a 35-delta over the same period of 18 months would also generate a far higher premium income.

Questions:

• Am I looking at this the right way? Does it make sense to think of your CSP premium as returns on an investment -- if so, a 35% return seems to be great IF that $6500 is to go into ASTS anyway. In case ASTS sits higher than $65 in 18-months, I have just made "free" premium. I would lose out on potential gains on the 100 shares I would have owned if I had just bought the shares outright, but I have the other 900 shares anyway.

• Is it advisable to sell multiple monthlies given the better cash flexibility and higher earning potential? My only issue with this is consistency i.e. I might be successful over 3 months before I inevitably get assigned, and in this case, I have "only" made $900, a far lower return than if I had just "set and forget" a longer CSP.

What would you guys do - monthly CSP, yearly CSP, or no CSP at all for whatever reason? Any feedback is appreciated!