You answered it yourself 🙂
Adjustment cost is way too high for bnf. Sometimes bnf does exceed nifty in vol crush, but nifty overall is more consistent.

More from Sarang Sood

Hello! Welcome to my profile.

This is Master thread of all the useful tweets (imo) that i have shared in the past. Going through them may provide some knowledge on options, volatility, greeks & trading psychology. Will keep updating in the future.

Thanks for following 🙏

👇👇

https://t.co/PKoiCFSrXJ


https://t.co/Qd3VpXcBlN


https://t.co/5AtqFPYFgA


https://t.co/imMobLg7fv

More from Trading

You May Also Like

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.