No, a vertical spread would beat long calls. It is a much better strategy in this situation. The op thought spy was going to 112.5 but not much higher, which I tend to believe was his thought since he did not ask which strategy would be most profitable if spy reaches 120 or 130. If this is the case why would you not sell a call against your long call to finance it?
If you just bought a long call, say a mar. $107, then he would risk $630 per contract. If, say 80 days after you bought the call spy hit 112.5, then you would make about $145. If spy didn't hit 112.5 until near expiration then you would lose about $77. (All these examples assume no change in volatility).
Now if you bought that same long call, but financed it by selling a mar. $112 call, the situation changes. You would risk $242 and would make $73, 80 days after spread was bought, even though you risked much less. If you held to experation you would realise a profit of $257 dollars.
So by just buying a long call you risk $630 and you actually lose $77 at expiration. For a return of -12%.
Buy buying a vertical call spread you risk $242 and you would make $257 for a return of 106%. Pretty big difference imo.
These were simplistic examples, there are probably better and more profitable ways of implementing a call spread or long calls, but as you can see the call spread will still be superior. You've gotta approach options in a way that emphasizes making as much as you can while risking as little as you can. Just blindly buying long calls is not how to go about trading options. Focus on your goals with this trade, where you think spy will be in the next few months (which you did), and devise a strategy where you can risk little to make a lot. This is what seperates the winning traders for the losing traders.
