How is Butterfly Trade Strategy good if the mid Strike price is already past?
One way to look at a butterfly is to break it into two trades. A butterfly is actually made up of two verticals... One is a debit vertical: buy 490 put and sell the 460 put.  The other is a credit vertical: sell a 460 put and buy a 430 put.  If someone believes Apple will fall to 460, that person could do a few things. There are other strategies but this just compares the three common ones: 1) Buy a put. This is expensive and if the stock only goes to 460 you overpay for it. 2) Buy a put vertical. This is less expensive because you offset the price of your put. 3) Buy a butterfly. This is cheapest of the three because you have the vertical in #2 as well as a credit vertical on top of that to offset your cost.  The reason why someone would use the butterfly is to pay less upfront while capitalizing on a fall to 460. Of the three, this would be the better strategy to use if that happens. But REMEMBER that this only applies if the trader is right and it goes to 460. There is always a trade off for every strategy that the trader must be aware of. If the trader is wrong, and Apple goes to say 400, the put (#1) would make the most money and the butterfly(#3) would lose money while the vertical (#2) would still gain. So that is what you're sacrificing to get the benefits of the butterfly. Also helps to draw a diagram to compare the strategies.
The strategy looks good on paper but in reality, the 150 call will have some time value particularly if it has got some time to mature. Let us say this time value is 0.50 , so the call costs 3.50.   If the stock stays above 150 (actually above 149.50) , by the expiration of the call, you will lose this 0.50 . Then you need to keep buying calls over and over and hope one day a big down move will more than make up for all this lost premium. It is possible, but not entirely predictable. You may get lucky, but it may take many months to produce a significant move to make up for all the lost premium. If a big down move were to happen and the market had any indication of that in advance, that would be priced into the call already, so the 150 call may cost 4$ or 4.50$ if the market had wind of a big move. (a.k.a high implied volatility) "You've laid out a strategy for deciding that the top of the market has passed and then realizing some gains before the market drops too far.  Regardless of whether this strategy is good at accomplishing its goal, it cannot by itself maximize your long-term profits unless you have a similar strategy for deciding that the bottom of the market has passed.  Even if you sell at the perfect time at the top of the market, you can still lose lots of money by buying at the wrong time at the bottom. People have been trying to time the market like this for centuries, and on average it doesn't work out all that much better than just plopping some money into the market each week and letting it sit there for 40 years. So the real question is: what is your investment time horizon?  If you need your money a year from now, well then you shouldn't be in the stock market in the first place.  But if you have to have it in the market, then your plan sounds like a good one to protect yourself from losses. If you don't need your money until 20 years from now, though, then every time you get in and out of the market you're risking sacrificing all your previous ""smart"" gains with one mistimed trade.  Sure, just leaving your money in the market can be psychologically taxing (cf. 2008-2009), but I guarantee that (a) you'll eventually make it all back (cf. 2010-2014) and (b) you won't ""miss the top"" or ""miss the bottom"", since you're not doing any trading." "The price of the last trade... Is the price of the last trade. It indicates what one particular buyer and seller agreed upon. There is absolutely no requirement that one of them didn't offer too much or demand too little, so this is nearly meaningless as an indication of what anyone else will be willing to offer or demand. An average of trades across a sufficiently large number of transactions might indicate a rough consensus about the value of a stock, but transactions will be clustered around that average and the average itself moves over time. Either you offer to sell or buy at a particular price, wait for that price, and risk the transaction not taking place at all if nobody agrees, or you do a spot transaction and get the best price at that nanosecond (which may not be the best in the next nanosecond). Or you tell the broker what the limits are that you consider acceptable, trading these risks off against each other. Pick the one which comes closest to your intent and ignore the fact that others may be getting a slightly different price. That's just the way the market works. ""If his price is lower, why didn't you buy it there?"" ""He's out of stock."" ""Well, come back when I'm out of stock and I'll be unable to sell it to you for an even better price!""" One should also point out that you make a major assumption in that the high of the day doesn't occur on a gap up in morning trading. It's unlikely that you'd fill at a reasonable price, thereby throwing your strategy into disarray. So far the answer is: observe the general direction of the market, using special tools if needed or you have them available (.e.g. Bollinger bands to help you understand the current trend) at the right time per above, do the roll with stop loss in place (meaning roll at a pre-determined max loss), and also a trailing stop loss if the roll works in your favor, to capture the profits on the roll. This trade was a learning experience.  I sold the option at $20 thinking I'd get back in later in the day with the further out option at a good price, as the market goes back and forth.  The underlying went up and never came back.  I finally gritted my teeth and bought the new option at 23.10 (when it would have cost me about 20.20 before), i.e. a miss/loss of $3 on $20. The underlying continued to rise, from that point (hasn't been back), and now the option price is $29. Of course one needs to make sure the Implied Volatility of the option being left and the option going to is good/fair, and if not, either roll further out in time, nearer in time, our up / down the strike prices, to find the right target option.  After doing that, one might do the strategy above, i.e. any good trade mgmt type strategy:  seek to make a good decision, acknowledge when you were wrong (with stop loss), and act. Or, if you're right, cash in smartly (i.e. trailing stops). "The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or ""going short.""  When you use money to buy shares, it is called ""going long."" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything.  Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share.  You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000.  You are both long and short in the stock for $2000.  At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds.  You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share.  Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000.  However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares.  Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest.  Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share.  Your long shares have lost $1000 in value.  However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares.  However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything.  Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time.  However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame.  The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting.  Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time.  You are only attempting to hedge your bets.  And it doesn't work.  A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position.  And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future.  This, however, doesn't really change things much.  Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term.  Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess.  And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain.  You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop.  You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon.  Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short.  However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position.    And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up.  You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain." "Simple answer: Breakeven is when the security being traded reaches a price equal to the cost of the option plus the option's strike price, assuming you choose to exercise it. So for example, if you paid $1.00 for,say, a call option with a strike price of $19.00, breakeven would be when the security itself reaches $20.00.  That being said, I can't imagine why you'd ""close out a position"" at the breakeven point.  You wouldn't make or lose money doing that, so it wouldn't be rational. Now, as the option approaches expiration, you may make adjustments to the position to reflect shifts in momentum of the stock.  So, if it looks as though the stock may not reach the option strike price, you could close out the position and take your lumps.  But if the stock has momentum that will carry it past the strike price by expiration, you may choose to augment your position with additional contracts, although this would obviously mean the new contracts would be priced higher, which raises your dollar cost basis, and this may not make much sense. Another option in this scenario is that if the stock is going to surpass strike price, it might be a good opportunity to buy additional calls with either later expiration dates or with higher strike prices, depending on how much higher you speculate the stock will climb.  I've managed to make some money doing this, buying options with strike prices just a dollar or two higher (or lower when playing puts), because the premiums were (in my opinion) underpriced to the potential peak of the stock by the expiration date.  Sometimes the new options were actually slightly cheaper than my original positions, so my dollar cost basis overall dropped somewhat, improving my profit percentages." Is investing more money into a stock that you already have a stake, in which has gone up in price a good idea? What you describe here is a good idea when the stock keeps up-trending. The way to do it is say you have originally bought $1000 worth of shares, then the next purchase you buy $500 worth, then $250 worth. It is called pyramiding into your trades. However, this system would not be the best with simply a buy and hold when you keep holding even if the price starts freefalling. You would need to have a trailing stop loss on your initial trade, and then as you buy each additional trade your trailing stop loss would incorporate the additional trade and move to a level where if you get stopped out you will make an overall profit. With each additional trade your trailing stop will move higher and higher for higher protected profits. The whole point behind pyramid trading is to keep buying more of a stock that keeps performing well to increase your profits. However, each additional purchase is half the previous one so that you don't eat too much into existing profits (in the case of the uptrend reversing) and so as to not overcapitalise on the one stock. So you are using part of your existing profits in an attempt to make more profits. "EDIT quid keenly identified the 1:7 reverse split In May 2017.  In a 1:7 reverse split, your shares are worth 7 times as much per share but you have 1/7 the amount of shares.  A share worth $3.78 now was worth (all else being equal) $0.54 a month ago.   So a call with a $2.50 strike a month ago was well out-of-the-money, and would now be the equivalent of a call with a $17.50 strike.  A $17.50 call with a $3.78 underlying (or a $2.50 call with a $0.54 underlying) would reasonably be worth only 5 cents. So I now suspect that the quote is a stale quote that existed pre-split and hasn't been adjusted by the provider. OLD ANSWER I can find no valid reason why those calls would be so cheap.  The stock price has been trending down from its onset in 2000, so either no one expects it to be above $2.50 in a month or it's so illiquid that there's not any real data to evaluate the options.  They did pay some massive (30%) dividends in 2010 and 2012, they've been hemorrhaging cash for the past 4 years at least, and I have found at least on ""strong sell"" rating, so there's not much to be optimistic about.  NASDAQ does not list any options for the stock, so it must be an OTC trade.   With an ask size of 10 you could buy calls on 1,000 shares for $0.05, so if you can afford to lose $50 and want to take a flyer you can give it a shot, but I suspect it's not a valid quote and is something that's been manufactured by the option broker." "I'm just trying to visualize the costs of trading. Say I set up an account to trade something (forex, stock, even bitcoin) and I was going to let a random generator determine when I should buy or sell it. If I do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Your question is what a mathematician would call an ""ill-posed problem.""  It makes it a challenge to answer.  The short answer is ""no.""  We will have to consider three broad cases for types of assets and two time intervals. Let us start with a very short time interval.  The bid-ask spread covers the anticipated cost to the market maker of holding an asset bought in the market equal to the opportunity costs over the half-life of the holding period.  A consequence of this is that you are nearly guaranteed to lose money if your time interval between trades is less than the half-life of the actual portfolio of the market maker.  To use a dice analogy, imagine having to pay a fee per roll before you can gamble.  You can win, but it will be biased toward losing. Now let us go to the extreme opposite time period, which is that you will buy now and sell one minute before you die.  For stocks, you would have received the dividends plus any stocks you sold from mergers.  Conversely, you would have had to pay the dividends on your short sales and received a gain on every short stock that went bankrupt.  Because you have to pay interest on short sales and dividends passed, you will lose money on a net basis to the market maker.  Maybe you are seeing a pattern here.  The phrase ""market maker"" will come up a lot. Now let us look at currencies.  In the long run, if the current fiat money policy regime holds, you will lose a lot of money.  Deflation is not a big deal under a commodity money regime, but it is a problem under fiat money, so central banks avoid it.  So your long currency holdings will depreciate.  Your short would appreciate, except you have to pay interest on them at a rate greater than the rate of inflation to the market maker. Finally, for commodities, no one will allow perpetual holding of short positions in commodities because people want them delivered.  Because insider knowledge is presumed under the commodities trading laws, a random investor would be at a giant disadvantage similar to what a chess player who played randomly would face against a grand master chess player.  There is a very strong information asymmetry in commodity contracts.  There are people who actually do know how much cotton there is in the world, how much is planted in the ground, and what the demand will be and that knowledge is not shared with the world at large.  You would be fleeced. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do   worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my   chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. A physicist, a con man, a magician and a statistician would tell you that dice rolls and coin tosses are not random.  While we teach ""fair"" coins and ""fair"" dice in introductory college classes to simplify many complex ideas, they also do not exist.  If you want to see a funny version of the dice roll game, watch the 1962 Japanese movie Zatoichi.  It is an action movie, but it begins with a dice game.   Consider adopting a Bayesian perspective on probability as it would be a healthier perspective based on how you are thinking about this problem.  A ""frequency"" approach always assumes the null model is true, which is what you are doing.  Had you tried this will real money, your model would have been falsified, but you still wouldn't know the true model. Yes, you can do much worse than 1/6th of the time.  Even if you are trying to be ""fair,"" you have not accounted for the variance. Extending that logic, then for an inexperienced trader, is it right to   say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it   is to purposely make a profit? Because if I can purposely make a loss,   I would purposely just do the opposite of what I'm doing to make a   profit. So in the dice example, if I can somehow lower my chances of   winning below 16.6667%, it means I would simply need to bet on the   other 5 numbers to give myself a better than 83% chance of winning. If the game were ""fair,"" but for things like forex the rules of the game are purposefully changed by the market maker to maximize long-run profitability.  Under US law, forex is not regulated by anything other than common law.  As a result, the market maker can state any price, including prices far from the market, with the intent to make a system used by actors losing systems, such as to trigger margin calls.  The prices quoted by forex dealers in the US move loosely with the global rates, but vary enough that only the dealer should make money systematically.  A fixed strategy would promote loss. You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of   view simply the transaction costs? No matter what, my chances cannot   be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is   greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction   cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money.  The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a ""mean return.""  A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an ""all-or-nothing"" cost function to evaluate your methodology." "Your strategy fails to control risk. Your ""inversed crash"" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts ""scramble"" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your ""trick"" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook." I have done this, and the reason is to make sure that I don't run out of money in my account to place the order if there is an unexpected upswing in price. Suppose I have $1000 in my account and I want to buy 10 shares of ABCD that are currently at $99.  If the price doesn't change, then I am all set, but if the price goes up to $101 then I don't have sufficient funds to make the purchase. By placing a limit order at $100 I can ensure that I have enough money to place the order. In general, it is a rather unlikely scenario that it could happen, but placing the limit order is easy to do and it gives me peace of mind. I don't know what you mean about bypassing the queue. "If they return to their earlier prices Assuming I don't make too many poor choices That's your problem right there: you have no guarantee that stocks, will in fact return to their earlier prices rather than go down some more after the time you buy them. Your strategy only looks good and easy  in hindsight when you know the exact point in time when stocks stopped going down and started going up. But to implement it, you need to predict that time, and that's impossible. I would adopt a guideline of ""sell when you've made X%, even if it looks like it might go higher."" Congratulations, you've come up with the concept of technical analysis. Now go and read the hundreds of books that have been written about it, then think about why the people who wrote them waste time doing so rather than getting rich by using that knowledge." At the higher level - yes. The value of an OTM (out of the money) option is pure time value. It's certainly possible that when the stock price gets close to that strike, the value of that option may very well offer you a chance to sell at a profit. Look at any OTM strike bid/ask and see if you can find the contract low for that option. Most will show that there was an opportunity to buy it lower at some point in the past.  Your trade. Ask is meaningless when you own an option. A thinly traded one can be bid $0 /ask $0.50. What is the bid on yours? I think you're missing the fact that the trader bought the $40 call but wrote the $45 call -- i.e. someone else bought the $45 call from him.  That's why you have to subtract 600-100.  At expiration, the following happens: So $600 + -$100 = $500 total profit. Note: In reality he would probably use the shares he gets from the first call to satisfy the shares he owes on the second call, so the math is even simpler: