The tasty way has always been 45 days to expiration.
According to them it is the "Goldilocks' Zone" .
So Let's say you want to initiate a trade for Dec monthly Expiry, around 15th Nov would be the ideal date to enter the trade. 2/n
Monthly positional strangles have become underrated.
Back in the day NIFTY only had monthly options,
Here's a summary of the research done by Tastytrade on how to trade it.
I have binge watched @tastytrade 's options content when I started out.
So here it is🧵🧵 1/n
The tasty way has always been 45 days to expiration.
According to them it is the "Goldilocks' Zone" .
So Let's say you want to initiate a trade for Dec monthly Expiry, around 15th Nov would be the ideal date to enter the trade. 2/n
The answer is 16D strangle ie -0.16D for PUT sell and 0.16D for call side.
This offers 68% probability of profit in theory which is equivalent to 1 standard deviation. 3/n
Tastyworks mechanism has this unique style of exiting based only on TIME and nothing else.
When the options are 21 days away from expiry just simply exit.
This reduces you gamma risk significantly.
4/n
More from All
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
