Here is the detailed information of about strategy,

Entry time : 9.30 - 10
Exit : Upto you

Strategy :
Sell weekly ATM CE & PE at almost equal price
For ex : Sell Nifty 17250 CE at 50 and Nifty 17250 PE at 48 so it will become short straddle

Buy monthly ATM or near ATM CE & PE at matching price (5-10 points diff should be fine) as hedge
For ex : Buy Nifty 17250 CE at 150 and Nifty 17300 PE at 155 so it will become long straddle.

Weekly Short straddle + Monthly Long straddle
Adjustment:

• If you feel slightly bullish/bearish then no adjustment needed
• If Nifty moves 50 up or down and sustain then just simply roll up or down half of qnty and keep rest of the quantity. If market goes up or down further then roll up or down rest.
• If Nifty moves one side or about to breach BEP then add equal amount of lot. This can balance tested side. For ex: If I bought 17300 CE 4 lot as hedge then add 4 lot so you will have only one side risk . Note: Remember to keep SL at cost price (only for additional lot bought)
Capital requirement:
2.2 L for 4 lot
Adjustment requires additional capital upto 1L

Note : High risk high reward strategy, please don’t execute until you fully understand. Kindly do paper trading or backtest.
RR : 1:1
POP : 45-55%
Disclaimer:
This is for educational purpose, I am not responsible for your profit or loss. Take your own decision 🙏🏼
Pardon my English 😀

Happy trading 😇
DONT LIKE SIMPLE IGNORE 🙏🙏😇

More from itrade(DJ)

More from Optionslearnings

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?