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 just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
