I do need to read some of posts more than once until I get the point, sometimes I don't until it's cleared like you just did, but I'm starting to believe that there is nothing much I can crack to get the solution to my problem as there is no such a functionality or combination, product. If there were something you guys would already pointed to it instead of shit talking, probably. Unless I'm talking with AI which is very possible.
My Achilles was severed/re-attached when I was in Europe. Dr Lidge performed the surgery and it was thought to be impossible at the time. No long hair tho. A beard and buzz cut.
Ouch... my 7spd auto dual-clutch sports car is still in one piece (thankfully). As is my Achilles, although it's been strained badly on occasion. That's a painful injury.
It's like talking with AI because neither of them will give you the magic structure. You might get more feedback on chatGPT but not sure they're relevant. Achieving a greater reward to risk than 2 (Bull Call Spread) within 1 standard deviation is kind of a magical feast.
I've run local LLMs on a dual 4090 Lambda rig and it's dissected my stuff (Claude), but you have to be familiar with the source material.
Unless we find arbitrages, which is way over my head, I think we always need a bias ... long / short volatility and / or price. I trade the market / sector / underlying more than the option itself. I wouldn't be able to trade the derivative as a standalone.
Well it's a directional trade. There is around 80% chance that once NY session breaks the one side of London range it wont break the other one on same session. And if it breaks the other one, there is around 40% chance it will go back into the London range. How would you play that?
Regarding the first 80%. We need to find a greater than 1:4 reward to risk to be profitable over time. Selling a Naked put isn't the answer (infinite risk). The entire probability is 0.8 + 0.2*0.4 = 0.88% Either you're long the other side at 3:22 (0.14) rr min Or you're short the other side at 22:3 (7.34) rr min