New to options trading and need help understanding an options spread risk graph. What am I missing?
"Suppose the stock is $41 at expiry. The graph says I will lose money. I think I paid $37.20 for (net debit) at this price. I would make money, not lose. What am I missing? The `net debit' doesn't have anything to do with your P/L graph. Your graph is also showing your profit and loss for NOW and only one expiration. Your trade has two expirations, and I don't know which one that graph is showing. That is the ""mystery"" behind that graph. Regardless, your PUTs are mitigating your loss as you would expect, if you didn't have the put you would simply lose more money at that particular price range. If you don't like that particular range then you will have to consider a different contract. it was originally a simple covered call, I added a put to protect from stock going lower.. Your strike prices are all over the place and NBIX has a contract at every whole number.... there is nothing simple about this trade. You typically won't find an ""always profitable"" combination of options. Also, changes in volatility can distort your projects greatly." You haven't said why you think you will gain at $41, but the graph never lies. Take it one piece at a time: At $41, your stock will lose a big chunk of value.  Your short calls will expire.  Your puts will gain a bit of value.  The stock's loss outweighs the option gains.
It really centers on the probability of your position falling to $0 and your level of comfort if that were to happen.  There are a plethora of situations that could cause an option contract to become worthless.  The application of leverage to a position also increases the risk. Zero risk would be an FDIC insured savings account, high risk would be buying options on margin, and there's a very wide grey area in between.  I agree that the whole process of assigning a risk level is dubious at best.  As you say, it seems using past data could help assign a risk level, look to beta values if you believe in that.  The problem here is the main disclaimer in use is that past performance cannot be relied upon for future gains. As an aside, if the US government files bankruptcy you'll have a whole host of more immediate problems than the value of your t-bills.  At that point dollars would have been a risky investment. To Chris' comment, find out if the assignment commission is the same as the commission for an executed trade. If that does affect the profit, just let it expire.  I've had spreads (buy a call, sell a higher strike call, same dates) so deep in the money, I just made sense to let both exercise at expiration. Don't panic if all legs ofthe trade don't show until Sunday or even Monday morning. I understand the question, I think. The tough thing is that trades over the next brief time are random, or appear so. So, just as when a stock is $10.00 bid / $10.05 ask, if you place an order below the ask, a tick down in price may get you a fill, or if the next trades are flat to higher, you might see the close at $10.50, and no fill as it never went down to your limit.  This process is no different for options than for stocks.  When I want to trade options, I make sure the strike has decent volume, and enter a market order. Edit - I reworded a bit to clarify. The Black–Scholes is a model, not a rigid equation. Say I discover an option that's underpriced, but it trades under right until it expires. It's not like there's a reversion to the mean that will occur. There are some very sophisticated traders who use these tools to trade in some very high volumes, for them, it may produce results. For the small trader you need to know why you want to buy a stock or its option and not worry about the last $0.25 of its price. Specific stock advice isn't permitted on these boards. I'm discussing the process of a call spread with the Apple Jan 13 calls as an example.  In effect, you have $10 to 'bet.' Each bet you'd construct offers a different return (odds). For example, If you bought the $750 call at $37.25, you'd need to look to find what strike has a bid of $27 or higher. The $790 is bid $27.75. So this particular spread is a 4 to 1 bet the stock will close in January over $790, with a $760 break even.  You can pull the number from Yahoo to a spreadsheet to make your own chart of spread costs, but I'll give one more example.  You think it will go over $850, and that strike is now ask $18.85. The highest strike currently listed is $930, and it's bid $10.35. So this spread cost is $850, and a close over $930 returns $8000 or over 9 to 1.  Again, this is not advice, just an analysis of how spreads work. Note, any anomalies in the pricing above is the effect of a particular strike having no trades today, not every strike is active so 'last trade' can be days old.   Note: My answer adds to AlexR's response in that once you used the word bet and showed a desire to make a risky move, options are the answer. You acknowledged you understand the basic concept, but given the contract size of 100 shares, these suggestions are ways to bet under your $1000 limit and profit from the gain in the underlying stock you hope to see. Thank you for replying. I'm not sure I totally follow though, aren't you totally at mercy of the liquidity in the stock? I guess I'm havinga hard time visualizing the value a human can add as opposed to say vwapping it or something. I can accept that you're right, just having a difficult time picturing it I am going to. Like I said I have not traded options much in general, but I can see a lot of potential in derivatives in general, and it makes me kind of grin. In the case of commodities, the advantages are really apparent. The only problem I see with stock options is that they expire, and thus if you are more long term bull on a stock, it would be harder. But for things like commodities, that are shorter term any ways and require margin, it makes a lot of sense IMO. I could see how you could gain a larger diversification through options (being able to bet on Russell 2000, S&amp;P, etc. ) or esoteric markets (electricity).   I will look up that book that you mentioned. Thanks man. "From what I have read from O'Neil to Van Tharp, etc, etc, no one can pick winners more than 75% of the time regardless of the system they use and most traders consider themselves successful if 60% of the trades are winners and 40% are losers.  So I am on the side that the chart is only a reflection of the past and cannot tell you reliably what will happen in the future. It is difficult to realize this but here is a simple way for you to realize it. If you look at a daily chart and let's say it is 9:30 am at the open and you ask a person to look at the technical indicators, look at the fundamentals and decide the direction of the market by drawing the graph, just for the next hour. He will realize in just a few seconds that he will say to him or her self ""How on earth do you expect me to be able to do that?""  He will realize very quickly that it is impossible to tell the direction of the market and he realizes it would be foolhardy to even try. Because Mickey Mantle hit over 250 every year of his career for the first 15 years it would be a prudent bet to bet that he could do it again over the span of a season, but you would be a fool to try to  guess if the next pitch would be a ball or a strike. You would be correct about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. You can rely on LARGER PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OVER YEARS, but short hourly or even minute by minute prediction is foolish. That is why to be a trader you have to keep on trading and if you keep on trading and cut your losses to 1/2 of your wins you will eventually have a wonderful profit.  But you have to limit your risk on any one trade to 1% of your portfolio.  In that way you will be able to trade at least 100 times.  do the math.  trade a hundred times.  lose 5% and the next bet gain 10%.  Keep on doing it. You will have losses sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row and also wins sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row but overall if you keep on trading even the best traders are generally only ""right"" 60% of the time.  So lets do the math. If you took 100 dollars and make 100 trades and the first trade you made 10% and reinvested the total and the second trade you lost 5% of that and continue that win/loss sequence for 100 trades you would have 1284 dollars minus commissions. That is a 1200% return in one hundred trades.  If you do it in a roth IRA you pay no taxes on the short term gains.  It is not difficult to realize that the stock market DOES TREND. And the easiest way to make 10% quickly is to in general trade 3x leveraged funds or stocks that have at least 3 beta from the general index.  Take any trend up and count the number of days the stock is up and it is usually 66-75% and take any down trend and it is down 66-75% of the days.  So if you bet on the the beginning of a day when the stock was up and if you buy the next day about 66-75% of the time the stock will also be up. So the idea is to realize that 1/3 of the time at least you will cut your losses but 2/3 of the time you will be up then next day as well.  So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else.  But losing 1/3 times is just part of ""the unpredictable"" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock.  Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move.  ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume.  But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed." a)  Are there any predictive factors for the success/failure of your trades. i.e. Volatility has some predictive power on the failure  of the trades, therefore, you may want to fine tune the strategy such that when vol &gt; x, it stays out (or even reverses).  b) i'll make a quick subreddit. If you're into math, do this thought experiment: Consider the outcome X of a random walk process (a stock doesn't behave this way, but for understanding the question you asked, this is useful): On the first day, X=some integer X1. On each subsequent day, X goes up or down by 1 with probability 1/2. Let's think of buying a call option on X. A European option with a strike price of S that expires on day N, if held until that day and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y = min(X[N]-S, 0). This has an expected value E[Y] that you could actually calculate. (should be related to the binomial distribution, but my probability & statistics hat isn't working too well today) The market value V[k] of that option on day #k, where 1 < k < N, should be V[k] = E[Y]|X[k], which you can also actually calculate. On day #N, V[N] = Y. (the value is known) An American option, if held until day #k and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y[k] = min(X[k]-S, 0).  For the moment, forget about selling the option on the market. (so, the choices are either exercise it on some day #k, or letting it expire) Let's say it's day k=N-1.  If X[N-1] >= S+1 (in the money), then you have two choices: exercise today, or exercise tomorrow if profitable. The expected value is the same. (Both are equal to X[N-1]-S). So you might as well exercise it and make use of your money elsewhere. If X[N-1] <= S-1 (out of the money), the expected value is 0, whether you exercise today, when you know it's worthless, or if you wait until tomorrow, when the best case is if X[N-1]=S-1 and X[N] goes up to S, so the option is still worthless. But if X[N-1] = S (at the money), here's where it gets interesting. If you exercise today, it's worth 0. If wait until tomorrow, there's a 1/2 chance it's worth 0 (X[N]=S-1), and a 1/2 chance it's worth 1 (X[N]=S+1). Aha! So the expected value is 1/2. Therefore you should wait until tomorrow. Now let's say it's day k=N-2.  Similar situation, but more choices: If X[N-2] >= S+2, you can either sell it today, in which case you know the value = X[N-2]-S, or you can wait until tomorrow, when the expected value is also X[N-2]-S. Again, you might as well exercise it now. If X[N-2] <= S-2, you know the option is worthless. If X[N-2] = S-1, it's worth 0 today, whereas if you wait until tomorrow, it's either worth an expected value of 1/2 if it goes up (X[N-1]=S), or 0 if it goes down, for a net expected value of 1/4, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S, it's worth 0 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 1 if it goes up, or 0 if it goes down -> net expected value of 1/2, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S+1, it's worth 1 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 2 if it goes up, or 1/2 if it goes down (X[N-1]=S) -> net expected value of 1.25, so you should wait. If it's day k=N-3, and X[N-3] >= S+3 then E[Y] = X[N-3]-S and you should exercise it now; or if X[N-3] <= S-3 then E[Y]=0.  But if X[N-3] = S+2 then there's an expected value E[Y] of (3+1.25)/2 = 2.125 if you wait until tomorrow, vs. exercising it now with a value of 2; if X[N-3] = S+1 then E[Y] = (2+0.5)/2 = 1.25, vs. exercise value of 1; if X[N-3] = S then E[Y] = (1+0.5)/2 = 0.75 vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-1 then E[Y] = (0.5 + 0)/2 = 0.25, vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-2 then E[Y] = (0.25 + 0)/2 = 0.125, vs. exercise value of 0. (In all 5 cases, wait until tomorrow.) You can keep this up; the recursion formula is E[Y]|X[k]=S+d = {(E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d+1)/2 + (E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d-1) for N-k > d > -(N-k), when you should wait and see} or {0 for d <= -(N-k), when it doesn't matter and the option is worthless} or {d for d >= N-k, when you should exercise the option now}. The market value of the option on day #k should be the same as the expected value to someone who can either exercise it or wait. It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early  (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model. The answer is actually very simple: the cost of data. Seriously. Call the CBOE tomorrow and ask yourself. They have two big programs:  1) the penny pilot program, where options trade at penny increments instead of 5 cent increments. This is only extended to a select few symbols because of the amount of data this can generate is too much for the data vendors. Data vendors store and sell historical data. The exchanges themselves often have a big data vending business too. 2) the weekly options program, where only select symbols get these chains because of the amount of data they will generate. Liquidity and demand are factors in determining if the CBOE will consider enabling those series on new issues. (although they have to give the list of which symbols are on these programs to the SEC) A bullish (or 'long') call spread is actually two separate option trades.  The A/B notation is, respectively, the strike price of each trade. The first 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to B, is the sale of a call option at a strike price of B (in this case $165).  The proceeds from this sale, after transaction costs, are generally used to offset the cost of the second 'leg'. The second 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to A, is the purchase of a call option at a strike price of A (in this case $145). Now, the important part: the payoff.  You can visualize it as so. This is where it gets a teeny bit math-y.  Below, P is the profit of the strategy, K1 is the strike price of the long call, K2 is the strike price of the short call, T1 is the premium paid for the long call option at the time of purchase, T2 is the premium received for the short call at the time of sale, and S is the current price of the stock.  For simplicity's sake, we will assume that your position quantity is a single option contract and transaction costs are zero (which they are not). P = (T2 - max(0, S - K2)) + (max(0, S - K1) - T1) Concretely, let's plug in the strikes of the strategy Nathan proposes, and current prices (which I pulled from the screen).  You have: P = (1.85 - max(0, 142.50 - 165)) - (max(0, 142.50 - 145)) = -$7.80 If the stock goes to $150, the payoff is -$2.80, which isn't quite break even -- but it may have been at the time he was speaking on TV. If the stock goes to $165, the payoff is $12.20. Please do not neglect the cost of the trades!  Trading options can be pretty expensive depending on the broker.  Had I done this trade (quantity 1) at many popular brokers, I still would've been net negative PnL even if NFLX went to >= $165. Agree with some of the posts above - Barchart is a good source for finding unusual options activity and also open interest -https://www.barchart.com/options/open-interest-change Well, premium is the least of my worries. I would rather worry about that than have to worry about a margin call. I hate debt, and so this is the draw for me. I will check on that. I have a few books on options and derivatives, and I find it quite fascinating! I would really like a specific book on future options, but I will take a look through the books I have. Thanks! I asked a friend and he gave me a good explanation, so I'm just gonna paste it here for others: There is a simple and a complex answer depending on how much you want to understand the pricing dynamic of options.  LEAPs don't react 1:1 with a stock move because the probability of your option being in the money at expiry is still very much up in the air so you basically don't get full credit for a move in the stock this far out from expiry. The more complex answer involves a discussion of option 'greeks'.  Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega, and Rho are variables that affect the pricing of all options.  The key greek in this case is Delta because it describes mathematically the expected move of an option as a ratio vs changes in stock price.  For put options the ratio is -1 to 0 where -1 is direct correlation between stock price and option price and 0 is no correlation.  The Delta increases as an option gets deeper in the money and also as it gets closer to expiry and reflects the probability of the option expiring in the money.  For your option contract the current Delta is -0.5673  so -3.38 * -0.5673 = 1.9 which is close.  Also keep in mind that that strike price had a last trade at 12:03 when the stock was at 13.3 and the current ask price is 22.30 so the last price isn't a true reflection of the market value.   As for the other greeks, Gamma is a reflection of volatility in the sense that it affects the rate of change of Delta as price and time changes.  Theta is the value of the time component of the option and is expressed as the expected time decay per day.  The problem is that the time premium is really some arbitrary number that the market maker seems to be able to change at will without justification and it can fluctuate wildly over short periods of time and I think this may explain some of the discrepancy.   If you bought the options when AAPL was $118.68 a couple weeks ago (option price of $18.85) and now AAPL is at $112.34 and the Delta over that time averaged at -0.55 then your expected option price would be $22.34 (($118.68 - $112.34) * 0.55 + 18.85 = $22.34) so you lost around $0.24 in time premium or 'Theta burn' over the last 2 weeks assuming it opens trading around 22.1 on Monday. Your broker should have information about the option contract greeks somewhere.  For my platform I have to put the cursor over top of the option contract for it to show me the greeks.  If your broker doesn't have this then you can get it from nasdaq.com. This is another reason that I only invest in deep in the money LEAPs because the time premium is much much lower than near the money and also because delta is much higher so if I want to trade out of it early I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off not getting paid for a stock price move.  For example look at the Jan 17 175 put.  The Delta is -0.9 and the time premium is only $0-1 depending if you are looking at the bid or ask.  The only downside is expected returns are lower for deep in the money contracts and they are expensive to buy. "First, your professor should learn proper grammar. Should be, ""Why **do**....""  Second, it looks like you're dealing with synthetic securities. You can create a synthetic T-Bill by doing a combination of long/short calls/puts.  But ignore all that. Just think about this without the technical jargon. We know that the risk free rate is typically what T-Bills are yielding right? And we know that since options are inherently more risky than US government debt, investors will demand a higher interest rate to compensate them for the risk. So, as the risk free rate increases, the value of a call will move the same direction, otherwise investors would stop dealing with call options and would instead buy safer, less-risky ""riskless"" investments.  It's not really an options question, just one of basic finance, risk, understanding of interest rates, etc."