Several people have asked me why PUTs, and not also CALLs, in this case of ES trading. The main reasons are: market drift, circuit breakers. "Unilateral" exposure where the worst-case scenario is clear and the possibility to easily switch across different greeks makes the difference between sleepless nights and "acceptable" risk. Worst case scenario would be holding a long position on an extremely low market (50%-70% down). Is this really so bad? First of all, note that one can even decide whether or not and when to be assigned, because of the continuous "information transfer" we can make. Second, with enough funds, you can "ride back" inverting to a long-constrained scalping/hedging game performed on the future itself. Or, alternatively, just "invert" your game passing to scalping (covered) call options, until you give back all your position at a much higher price. And you can imagine the results. At this point, even the worst-case scenario can be a great opportunity.
What are the main features that mostly contribute to making this procedure profitable with acceptable drawdown or low risk?
What makes the dd more acceptable is the fact that we can choose the amount of "sensitivity" (and volatility) we prefer by selecting the desired target instrument, among the entire option matrix. We can go gradually. And a highly optimized scalping/hedging game performed using "player superposition", helps a lot to bring down drawdown (where "player" here means essentially an order equipped with and following effective automation rules.). The decay and the drift also work constantly in our favour, through the continuous rollovers.
As to profitability, it's essentially the combination of the hedging action of buy orders triggered by mkt corrections, and the recovery mechanism of the stop/hedging orders attained through the "information transfer" across layers. This allows us to track easily the layers that need to recover from too "damaging" hedging orders. In fact, one can take only a relatively small amount of hedging (or stop orders) in any strategy, without destroying any possibility of long term profit.
This works and there is essentially only one way to make it fail: taking too much risk relative to available funds. For now, I am mostly keeping the margins at a level they generally take about half of the available funds (with possible temporary "overload" when some far-away option layer is very close to expiry.)
What are the main features that mostly contribute to making this procedure profitable with acceptable drawdown or low risk?
What makes the dd more acceptable is the fact that we can choose the amount of "sensitivity" (and volatility) we prefer by selecting the desired target instrument, among the entire option matrix. We can go gradually. And a highly optimized scalping/hedging game performed using "player superposition", helps a lot to bring down drawdown (where "player" here means essentially an order equipped with and following effective automation rules.). The decay and the drift also work constantly in our favour, through the continuous rollovers.
As to profitability, it's essentially the combination of the hedging action of buy orders triggered by mkt corrections, and the recovery mechanism of the stop/hedging orders attained through the "information transfer" across layers. This allows us to track easily the layers that need to recover from too "damaging" hedging orders. In fact, one can take only a relatively small amount of hedging (or stop orders) in any strategy, without destroying any possibility of long term profit.
This works and there is essentially only one way to make it fail: taking too much risk relative to available funds. For now, I am mostly keeping the margins at a level they generally take about half of the available funds (with possible temporary "overload" when some far-away option layer is very close to expiry.)
Last edited:
