Been looking at both strategies for when markets get really jumpy. Have tried straddles a few times but the results were mixed.
Strangles seem cheaper to set up but I’m not sure if they work better when volatility spikes. Lost some money on my last straddle attempt during earnings season.
Which one do you find more reliable when things get volatile?
Strangles worked for me too, 73% profit last month during that crazy SPY drop.
Mixed results often come from poor timing with both strategies. You need a significant move to happen quickly before time decay hits your position.
For volatile markets, strangles are my go-to. They are cheaper to set up, allowing for more flexibility if you’re wrong. When volatility rises, lower costs give you better profit potential.
Make sure to select strike prices that aren’t too far apart. I recommend 5-10% out from the current price on each side. This balance lets you catch significant moves while keeping expenses manageable.
Strangles perform better in volatile markets.
• Lower premium cost = higher profit margin
• Wider breakeven range handles big moves
• Time decay less severe than straddles
Data shows 65% success rate during high volatility periods versus 45% for straddles.
Volatility crushed me twice with straddles before I switched to strangles completely.
The premium cost difference saved my account when I was wrong about direction. Got burned on Apple earnings with a straddle that needed a 12% move just to break even.
Strangles give you breathing room when the market goes crazy but not exactly where you expected.
Strangles seem to be a good choice during high volatility since they are cheaper to set up and allow for more movement in the stock.
Choosing the right strike prices is crucial. If they are too far out, substantial moves might not yield any profit. If they are too close, a straddle may be better.
Been there with straddles during earnings season, the fees can be quite high.