I almost always sell weekly options. Sell them on Monday or Tuesday and wait till expiration on Friday. I always sell them naked using margin to juice returns. I mitigate the dreaded margin call thru diversifying amongst multiple positions.
To be honest, Ive never experienced a situation where every position goes into the money because I am diversifying amongst 10 positions. However, when a position goes into the money, I have several choices. I can either buy to close the position and take a loss. Assume the position and sell covered calls until I go back to cash, or I can roll the put down and out. I will only take a loss, if the underlying stock has closed the week below the 52 week moving average but even in that case, I may sell a deep in the money covered call and except a smaller profit or a breakeven if I think I can get out and move back to cash the next week.
My general philosophy is to not take losses and continue to sell "time" if the math makes sense and the return is acceptable to me.
But to answer your question another way if every position goes into the money, what would I do and be willing to except for losses all depends...If every position was to go in the money and I found myself looking at losses, I would have to seriously look at the broad market and determine if staying in made sense. Because most likely if all positions collapsed, it would be because of some type of tail risk, I wasnt planning for. In that situation clearly a significant market event has occurred and a shift in trading strategy or just simply complete liquidation would be in order.
I see. If you're selling weekly's then how far out of the money can you actually sell to collect any semblance of premium? Around +/-3-5% tops from where the market is at?
Also, with market volatility in general being fairly low, there is not much risk premium to speak of from which to juice returns. This may force one to increase position size to obtain acceptable real value returns, which also significantly multiplies risk.
Also in a rising and high interest rate environment, the put options pricing factor, rho, takes a negative hit to making put selling less desirable as put prices trend lower with a higher risk free rate. This makes the put selling game less and less ideal in a rising rate environment.
Well the put selling strategy has been described in the past a picking up pennies in front of a steam train. Or as Taleb explains, you win 99% of the time and then that 1% wipes you out. But trading in this fashion is fine too I guess with risk management. That's why credit spreads are better because the loss is capped and the steam roller can't roll you completely flat. If say you risk 30% of total NAV, to make 2% a month, some may argue that is acceptable, as a worst case drawdown is 30%, which is on par with any kind of major portfolio shock, whether or not you were a put seller.
Is put selling so much worse than being bullish and long the market? Probably not. I think there was a study that suggested in 2013 index option put selling was more profitable than being long the market.
But can't it in theory, if you are naked short, just all run a lot against you? Maybe gap moves? In other words you cannot contain the loss? How do you mitigate against that? You can only do that if the price moves were rather gradual. But for single stocks, there can be gap moves.
Personally I would prefer credit spreads. Returns are lower, but so is the risk and so is the margin utilization to hold the position.