You are missing a lot... ICs spread your risk... if your loaded up on one side in a credit spread you have one fault line to cross to wipe you out... you should be asking more questions in this thread then giving out your assumptions..... your reply to my post in the other thread was defensive and off... I help everyone I can... including you with your Netflix put trade... I really actually don't mind your leveraging rants as much as I'veput off but a lot of the people that comment on your trading that you go off on have more expierencw then you...... and you inquire a lot about stuff like ICs.... my speculation is that the leveraging interests you because I think you know in your gut that nimble smart vol traders make more money then outright buy/write strats do...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bread & Butter Iron Condors
- Thread starter cactiman
- Start date
<<< You are missing a lot... ICs spread your risk... if your loaded up on one side in a credit spread you have one fault line to cross to wipe you out... you should be asking more questions in this thread then giving out your assumptions..... >>>
I am asking questions.
And your answer seems to support my notion that the double fault line of an IC is more risky than the single fault line of a credit spread.
You say the IC's spread your risk. Isn't that another way of saying it increases your risk? Not to mention stress.
Is it really just all about the "potential" of a double credit? Or am I missing something?
In "theory" you can only lose on one side of an IC. But in "reality", can't you actually hurt yourself even easier with an IC vs a spread, if the stock/index gets "volatile" and you are making frequent adjustments, even if the stock remains inside your IC trade?
I am asking questions.
And your answer seems to support my notion that the double fault line of an IC is more risky than the single fault line of a credit spread.
You say the IC's spread your risk. Isn't that another way of saying it increases your risk? Not to mention stress.
Is it really just all about the "potential" of a double credit? Or am I missing something?
In "theory" you can only lose on one side of an IC. But in "reality", can't you actually hurt yourself even easier with an IC vs a spread, if the stock/index gets "volatile" and you are making frequent adjustments, even if the stock remains inside your IC trade?
The idea is split the amount of the one side. Credit spread into tw
O... you can hurt yourself in.any strategy.. you can make less money then a treaa
Treasury bond and waste your life staring at a screen... does everything everyone say further justify your notions! Haha the real idea is to find a sweet spot in the term structure such that you can collect thetas at manageable gammas...there is no such thong as delta neutral gamma neutral.. and again your betting vol will be lower then implied...the idea of set it and forget it is for long term investors anyway
O... you can hurt yourself in.any strategy.. you can make less money then a treaa
Treasury bond and waste your life staring at a screen... does everything everyone say further justify your notions! Haha the real idea is to find a sweet spot in the term structure such that you can collect thetas at manageable gammas...there is no such thong as delta neutral gamma neutral.. and again your betting vol will be lower then implied...the idea of set it and forget it is for long term investors anyway
Quote from Put_Master:
<<< You are missing a lot... ICs spread your risk... if your loaded up on one side in a credit spread you have one fault line to cross to wipe you out... you should be asking more questions in this thread then giving out your assumptions..... >>>
I am asking questions.
And your answer seems to support my notion that the double fault line of an IC is more risky than the single fault line of a credit spread.
You say the IC's spread your risk. Isn't that another way of saying it increases your risk? Not to mention stress.
Is it really just all about the "potential" of a double credit? Or am I missing something?
In "theory" you can only lose on one side of an IC. But in "reality", can't you actually hurt yourself even easier with an IC vs a spread, if the stock/index gets "volatile" and you are making frequent adjustments, even if the stock remains inside your IC trade?
<<< The idea is split the amount of the one side. Credit spread into twO... you can hurt yourself in.any strategy.. you can make less money then a treaa >>>
I don't see what you are splitting.
Seems you are only doubling.
Doubling your risk for double the credit.
And doubling your stress of potentially managing 2 directional adjustments of an IC, vs one for a credit spread.
Not to mention double commissions for additional adjustments.
I don't see what you are splitting.
Seems you are only doubling.
Doubling your risk for double the credit.
And doubling your stress of potentially managing 2 directional adjustments of an IC, vs one for a credit spread.
Not to mention double commissions for additional adjustments.
I don't know how other people would do it but if I had 20 grand I was gonna put up for iron condor strategy s I would not use it all in the initial setup would would not double up just because there's 2 sides of the trade I would split the total amount I was going to first invest and put it into an iron condor instead of a credit spread.. and yes there is whipsaw over adjustment risk...
Quote from cdcaveman:
I don't know how other people would do it but if I had 20 grand I was gonna put up for iron condor strategy s I would not use it all in the initial setup would would not double up just because there's 2 sides of the trade I would split the total amount I was going to first invest and put it into an iron condor instead of a credit spread.. and yes there is whipsaw over adjustment risk...
If you had 20,000, unless your desired return was 2,000/year you shouldn't be a net seller of volatility in any form.
Couldn't you say that for any strategy, whether it be an IC, credit spread, or naked put?Quote from cdcaveman:
I don't know how other people would do it but if I had 20 grand I was gonna put up for iron condor strategy s I would not use it all in the initial setup would would not double up just because there's 2 sides of the trade I would split the total amount I was going to first invest and put it into an iron condor instead of a credit spread.. and yes there is whipsaw over adjustment risk...
That being, only put in half and then add more later if you can get a better strike or credit?
Afterall, whether you are initiating a credit spread or an IC, isn't the initial set up cost pretty much the same, in terms of margin requirements?