[SkyMarshal]

I skimmed through the linked github and reddit post, and maybe I missed it, but this looks like the kind of strategy that gets blown up when a negative black swan occurs. They're "harvesting premium" by selling options, based on the fact that "implied volatility is typically higher than realized volatility on average." Which is true, until it isn't. Like, yikes dude.

For example, the author recommends spreading selling options across multiple sectors to avoid getting blown up by any one sector moving against you, implicitly assuming no correlation across sectors. But how many times do we have to relearn that lesson that correlations do happen, and more frequently than we expect.

One of the commenters in the reddit thread even says that - they retired just before 2020 b/c all their Monte Carlo simulations showed they would have plenty to retire on, unless a highly unlikely correlated whole-market crash occurred. Which happened in the same year after they retired, blowing up their retirement planning.

I wouldn't recommend this strategy to noobs.

[coin]

Absolutely. I call it the options fallacy. It gives the illusion of risk free money but in reality it’s just capitalizing on a particular market pattern. There’s no free lunch.

[someguydave]

Yeah selling options makes you an insurance firm, so you should have a better handle on valuing risk than your counterparty or you are probably the fool.

[thorncorona]

optionsellers.com moment lol

[almostgotcaught]

> Which is true, until it isn't.

this is the worst newspeak/vernacular/neologism of the whole bunch. it conveys/express literally nothing.

[isoprophlex]

It conveys to me that black swans happen, and best to take them into account. I don't get your point.