ok continuing ...
As far as ITM/ATM/OTM is concerned, here's the (albeit crude) scheme i follow as of now
When WITH THE TREND *
i) ATM or (just) OTM w.r.t. spot ( the latter would normally still be ATM or ITM w.r.t. Futures price)
When COUNTER TREND **
i) ITM w.r.t. Spot or Futures (whichever is deeper)
But a recent 'narrow escape' makes me feel that perhaps a bit too aggressive especially when mkts are in an 'uncertainty zone'.
So i was thinking how about changing the reference lvl in rule i to the SL in Spot i.e. rule1 would now read
ATM or (just) OTM w.r.t. SL in spot
Assuming i know nothing of Delta (which isn't too far from the truth) & am just seeking a logical change to my rules for reducing my risk without forfeiting too much of the reward, would the aforesaid change actually give me a good enough Delta?
Regards,
Kalyan.
* I use a volatility based definition of the trend for Options, even if such a 'trend' is very short term
** Haven't done much - too scared
As far as ITM/ATM/OTM is concerned, here's the (albeit crude) scheme i follow as of now
When WITH THE TREND *
i) ATM or (just) OTM w.r.t. spot ( the latter would normally still be ATM or ITM w.r.t. Futures price)
When COUNTER TREND **
i) ITM w.r.t. Spot or Futures (whichever is deeper)
But a recent 'narrow escape' makes me feel that perhaps a bit too aggressive especially when mkts are in an 'uncertainty zone'.
So i was thinking how about changing the reference lvl in rule i to the SL in Spot i.e. rule1 would now read
ATM or (just) OTM w.r.t. SL in spot
Assuming i know nothing of Delta (which isn't too far from the truth) & am just seeking a logical change to my rules for reducing my risk without forfeiting too much of the reward, would the aforesaid change actually give me a good enough Delta?
Regards,
Kalyan.
* I use a volatility based definition of the trend for Options, even if such a 'trend' is very short term
** Haven't done much - too scared