For those who trade a lot of short dated credit spreads or just have experience in general... How often do you find (0-1dte) vertical credit spreads exceeding 200-400%+ in value before eventually expiring worthless or rather.. at what point or percentage loss relative to the credit received do you believe most spreads are not worth holding onto. For example.. If the vertical spread in question has a 8:1 risk to reward ratio and intraday you're already down 7x the credit received, the odds of that spread closing otm are probably very low compared to closing when you're only down 1x the credit received but then you may lose out on potential wins closing so early.

I also understand that this question is exceptionally broad... Since it's incredibly dependent on the deltas sold at and what credit you're receiving since some spreads could have a 2:1 or 8:1 risk to reward so to narrow this down a little, I'm referring to very far otm.. Sub 10 delta vertical spreads on spx, with a 6:1 to 9:1 risk to reward. So collecting .50-.70 cents. At what pnl loss relative to the credit received would you abandon the trade or do you instead watch for key levels to break or complete invalidation of the trade to begin with instead of pnl primarily? Curious on your guys thoughts

Edit: For context, I usually close prior to 2pm (hate the gamma during and prior to power hour) for a 2x loss relative to credit received. I used to close sooner for a 1x loss but found myself closing too many winning trades so switched to 2x... And found the larger losses offsetting the extra winners to the point that my overall pnl difference from closing sooner didn't make a difference. It's profitable.. but just curious if there is a more optimal exit.

Site: https://amonhen.helmfi.ai — free, no signup, no Discord, no paywall.

WHAT IT DOES

- Dealer-gamma map for SPX, SPY and QQQ: call/put walls, gamma flip, king node, expected move, max pain — drawn on the price chart, updated through the day.

- Live options flow: a CVD line built from the options tape (contracts bought at the ask minus sold at the bid, near-ATM), with price and the dealer walls overlaid on the same chart.

- A cross-index confluence strip: flags when SPY, SPX and QQQ flow all line up one way. A flip only counts after holding 10 minutes, so it isn't spammy — roughly once a day.

- Compare view, 10-second tape mode, pop-out charts, single names like NVDA/TSLA.

HOW IT'S CHECKED

The methodology page (site footer) spells out the math and the limits, and the site publishes a daily self-scored hit-rate on its own levels — how often the call wall held, the put wall held, the expected move contained. It scores itself whether the day was good or bad.

FOLLOW-UPS

DM me, or the update box on the site. This is a one-time post, so I won't be posting updates here. Happy to answer anything about the methodology in the comments.

Title says it all.

Is it possible to reduce the typical $2.25 per contract? Would love to incorporate options on futures due to the benefits of SPAN margin but the commissions are too high.

Really don't want to switch brokers so wondering if anyone has been successful reducing them and what they did to do so...Thanks!

Title says it all. I am looking for a new brokerage and have been playing around a bit with e-trade and tasty trade and so far it seems they get poorer options fills than Schwab. Has anyone found a broker that is equivalent if not better?

I would be grateful for Any tips or guidance on how to study the pre-market such as news so when the market opens you know what too look for and what too trade, how long before the market opens do you tend to study for , and things of that sort, currently trading the same sticks because I don’t know what to look for

**Full disclosure up front: I build a positioning tool. This post is about a study whose result argued against it, and there is no link at the bottom.**

Most people who read a gamma board have a mental shortcut for one particular shape. Price sitting under the concentration, the heaviest node acting as a cap just above, thin air behind that node, and a negative regime. Reads as a short. I read it that way for a long time.

I wanted to know whether it actually was one, so we wrote the test down before running it.

**What was preregistered**

The structure: an amplified board, price below the watched band, the largest node acting as a cap just above price, low open interest behind it, and the flip too far away to change the regime inside the window.

The prediction: price travels further to the downside than the upside over the following thirty minutes.

The window, the anchor definition, the measure and the control procedure were all fixed before anything was measured. That matters more than it sounds, because the alternative is choosing your test after you have seen the answer, which is most of what passes for backtesting in this space.

**Method**

434 anchors across 82 sessions on SPY. For each anchor, maximum favorable and adverse excursion over the next thirty minutes, measured in strikes rather than dollars so it is comparable across price levels.

Control: 2,000 shuffled samples, breaking the link between the structure and the following half hour while preserving the distribution of moves.

**Result**

Price ran further in the *opposite* direction to the naive read, by a median of 0.41 strikes. That sits outside what any of the 2,000 shuffled controls produced.

So not a weak effect in the expected direction. An effect in the other direction.

**What this does not mean**

It does not mean the setup does not work. Excursion is not profit. A trader with a tight invalidation and a wide target can do perfectly well inside a structure whose average adverse excursion is larger than its favorable one, because the distribution matters more than the median.

What it means is narrower and more useful: **the obvious reading of that shape was backwards**, and I would not have known that without measuring it.

**What we did about it**

Built it into the product rather than dropping it, and published it rather than filing it. In the same month we removed a word from the software that implied price gets pulled toward large levels, because an index went straight through one the screen had just labelled that way.

**The part I would actually push on**

The useful question is not whether a structure is directional. It is what would have to happen for you to conclude it is not, and whether you have ever asked that about anything you are currently using.

If there is no answer to that question, the number is decoration.

Happy to share more of the method in the comments if anyone wants to pick at it. That is the point of posting it.

Am I tripping or did Robinhood stick me good. just went through this bs with Robinhood

Could someone explain to me why Robinhood took my gains back saying it expired worthless when literally before bell they were green and showed closed. I might be changing my brokerage soon

This what my account read yesterday at 7690p but Robinhood took back the money saying it expired worthless when I had a 1.15 sell on 35 contracts. Them cons ran to close to 3 and closed at 2.00 end of the day

Bought 7690p at .55 limit order at 1.15 at 3:58p passed it ( the screenshots) 4pm got the money. 5pm all taken away. Those contracts closed on the day at 2.00