Ricky
Hi, looks like the positions are 'short the wings' condors; which could alternatively seen as being a combination of bull call spread and a bear but spread; likely outcome is lots of small losses and the occaisonal big win [ as you would expect; the opposite of IC's]; but no 'position' is intrinsically better than any other if it is excecuted mechanically month after month unless you believe that you have spotted an edged that the pro's and market makers have overlooked.
Short flies /condors are much the same as long straddles / strangles in that they are theta negative and probably need you to gamma scalp underlying market movement in order to be succesful.
Some traders are more comfortable being 'short premium', theta positive, making defensive adjustments; other traders prefer being 'long premium', negative theta, gamma scalping; it's a case or working out your trading style.
The art comes in position management once you are in the game; and if you want to be 'long premium'; I seem to remember there is a really useful summary of 'adjustments to vertical spreads' in the files section.
Cheers
James
--- In OptionClub@yahoogro
>
> Right after January expiration, I started a paper test of the
> following mechanical strategy:
>
> Enter an approximately delta neutral pair of February debit spreads,
> above and below the money for the following tickers, AAPL, GOOG, IBM,
> IWM, RIMM. Choose the spreads so that, based on recent volatility for
> each ticker, you can expect to reach the short strike for at least one
> of the spreads. Whenever the market gets to the short strike of
> either spread, sell the vertical spread, based on the short strike and
> the next strike down, for enough credit to make a free fly on one
> side. Do the same if the market reverses. Hold until expiration. I
> used Options House software for the paper trading. Here are the
> results based on today's closing prices.
>
> AAPL - On 1-19, -220p+210p+220c-
> On 1-22, +190p-200p @3.45.
> Closing price on 2-19 was 201.67, giving a 75.8%
> profit vs. 4.8% if original position was held to expiration (doing
> nothing). Accompaning P/L chart is based on starting with 3 reverse
> ICs. In the charts I tried to even out the amount of money invested
> (= maximum risk) in each of the 5 positions.
>
> GOOG - On 1-19, -570p+580p+600c-
> On 1-22, 560p-570p @ 4.70.
> Closing price on 2-19 was 540.76 giving a 44.6% loss
> vs 100% loss for doing nothing. Chart based on starting with 2
> reverse ICs.
>
> IBM - On 1-19, -125p+130p+135c-
> On 1-26, 120p-125p @ 1.41.
> Closing price on 2-19 was 127.19, giving a 64.3% profit vs
> 4.3% profit for doing nothing. Chart based on starting with 7 reverse
> ICs.
>
> IWM - On 1-19, -63p+64p+65c-
> On 1-22, 62p-63p @ .43.
> Closing price on 2-19 was 63.06, giving a 75.6% profit vs
> 20.5% for doing nothing. Chart based on starting with 24 reverse ICs.
>
> RIMM - On 1-19, -60p+65p+65c-
> On 2-12, -70c+75c @ 1.81.
> Closing price on 2-19 was 71.03 giving a 67.5% profit
> vs 44.9% for doing nothing. Chart is based on starting with 6 reverse
> ICs.
>
> Average profit for the 5 positions was 47.7% vs 4.8% for the do
> nothing after 1-19 methodology.
>
> I hope that I have inspired somebody, who has a command of backtesting
> software, to post results of a more extensive test. Also, it would be
> nice if somebody checked my profit numbers. I have some comments to
> make on what this test demonstrates, if anything, but would like to
> refrain until others put their 2 cents in.
>
> Ricky
>
To unsubscribe from TheOptionClub, send an email to:
OptionClub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment