As covered in the entry article, I opened two SPX put broken-wing butterflies on October 16, expiring October 30:

Buy: 2 × 7,730 PUT
Sell: 4 × 7,690 PUT
Buy: 2 × 7,635 PUT

The 40/55 structure cost $60, with $3,060 starting risk before commissions.

On October 22 at 9:52 a.m. ET, I added one 7,670 put calendar, selling October 30 and buying November 6. The adjustment cost $1,990. SPX was 7,680.88 at the preceding review.

On October 23 at 3:34 p.m. ET, I completed the second downside step: moving one 7,635 long put from October 30 to November 6, while retaining the calendar. That adjustment cost $2,365. SPX was 7,628.96 at the review.

Execution did not always follow the signals immediately. The first downside recommendation appeared on October 16; an upside-calendar signal on October 21 was not executed. The second downside step was first recommended on October 22 and executed the following day.

The October 26 review recommended closing for profit. The recorded TWS take-profit execution on October 27 closed all remaining legs for $5,090, three days before the original expiration.

Opening debit: $60
First adjustment: $1,990 debit
Second adjustment: $2,365 debit
Closing proceeds: $5,090
Gross profit: $675.00
Total commissions: $31.66
Final net profit: $643.34

The result finished $490.34 above the original target. OptionStrat shows the $675 gross gain; the journal deducts all recorded commissions. No positions remain open in this campaign.

👉 View the completed position on OptionStrat
👉 Review the complete campaign history

Disclaimer
All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Any trades or strategies should be tested in a simulated environment before use. Trading involves risk, and all decisions are the sole responsibility of the reader.

On October 21, I closed the remaining position for $500.08 net profit, above the original $160 target, with two days remaining before the butterflies expired.

The trade needed both an upside and a downside adjustment. It also exposed something I need to be honest about: I have not been consistent with the management schedule.

From Entry to Two Adjustments

As covered in the entry article, I opened two SPX put broken-wing butterflies on October 9 at 10:35 a.m. ET, expiring October 23:

• Buy 2 × 7,790 PUT @ 57.80

• Sell 4 × 7,750 PUT @ 43.20

• Buy 2 × 7,695 PUT @ 29.60

The 40/55 structure cost $200, with $3,200 modeled starting risk and a $160 net profit target.

That afternoon, SPX reached 7,815.17 at the scheduled review, above the upper long strike. At 3:50 p.m. ET, I added one 7,835 put calendar, selling October 23 and buying October 30.

Adjustment debit: $2,160.

On October 14, the market moved lower. A manual review at 11:24 a.m. ET, with SPX at 7,745.87, triggered the first downside adjustment. At 11:30 a.m., I closed the 7,835 calendar and opened a 7,735 put calendar, keeping the same expirations.

Net adjustment debit: $780.

The original butterflies remained unchanged throughout the campaign.

Where I Broke the Routine

The scheduled 3:30 p.m. New York review is 12:30 a.m. in Tashkent. Staying up for it every trading day has been harder than I expected. I find myself putting decisions off until the next session or acting outside the scheduled review.

That means I am breaking the timing rules. In this campaign, the downside calendar change happened intraday. From October 14 onward, the system also repeatedly recommended a second defensive step: moving one lower long put into the later expiration. I did not execute that adjustment.

The position went through a substantial drawdown. One saved review on October 16 showed an estimated net liquidation loss of $1,497.82. That is a recorded snapshot, rather than a measurement of the worst intraday loss.

The recovery eventually gave me a profitable exit. It does not establish that delaying or skipping the adjustments was the better decision.

Wednesday’s Exit

On October 21 at 9:34 a.m. ET, the take-profit execution closed all remaining legs for a 36.75 credit, receiving $3,675 before the closing commission.

The campaign finished fully closed, with no open legs remaining.

Final Trade Numbers

• Opening butterflies: $200 debit

• Upside calendar: $2,160 debit

• Replacement with downside calendar: $780 net debit

• Closing proceeds: $3,675

• Gross profit: $535.00

• Total commissions: $34.92

• Final net profit: $500.08

The result was $340.08 above the original target. OptionStrat shows the $535 gross result; the journal deducts all recorded commissions.

👉 View the completed position on OptionStrat
👉 Review the complete campaign history

All’s well that ends well—this time. I am pleased with the result, but I still need to solve the midnight execution problem.

Disclaimer
All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Any trades or strategies should be tested in a simulated environment before use. Trading involves risk, and all decisions are the sole responsibility of the reader.

The recommended entry was 0.05 credit per butterfly, but I could not get that price. I entered using a market order in IBKR at 0.30 debit per butterfly, or $60 for the two-lot position. That is $70 worse than the earlier reference price. The calculation and execution occurred seven…

Read more

The final result was $160.48 net profit, above the original $118.80 target, with two upside adjustments: adding a put calendar and later rolling it higher.

I opened the trade on October 2 and closed the remaining position on October 13, three days before the butterflies expired. Here is how it unfolded.

From Entry to the First Decision

As covered in the entry article, I opened two SPX put broken-wing butterflies on October 2 at 10:37 a.m. ET, with an October 16 expiration:

• Buy 2 × 7,750 PUT @ 67.40

• Sell 4 × 7,710 PUT @ 51.71

• Buy 2 × 7,660 PUT @ 37.90

The 40/50 structure cost $376, with $2,376 modeled starting risk and a $118.80 net profit target.

Friday’s review called for holding. By Monday, October 5, SPX was at 7,789.90—above the upper long strike at 7,750. The system recommended adding an upside put calendar.

One Calendar Added, Then Rolled Higher

I executed the first adjustment the following morning, October 6 at 9:36 a.m. ET:

• Sell 1 × Oct 16 7,810 PUT @ 54.15

• Buy 1 × Oct 23 7,810 PUT @ 69.40

Adjustment debit: $1,525
Commission: $3.26

The original butterflies stayed unchanged.

That afternoon, the system signaled a roll higher, which I did not execute then. The October 7 and October 8 reviews returned to hold.

On October 9, another review called for moving the calendar higher. At 3:41 p.m. ET, I closed the 7,810 calendar and opened a 7,835 put calendar, keeping the same October 16 short and October 23 long expirations.

Roll credit: $100
Commission: $6.52

These were the campaign’s two executed adjustments. No downside adjustment was made.

Tuesday’s Take-Profit Exit

The October 12 afternoon review still called for holding.

On Tuesday, October 13, at 9:48 a.m. ET, the take-profit order closed all remaining legs for a 19.95 credit, receiving $1,995 before the closing commission.

The campaign was fully closed with three calendar days remaining before the front expiration.

Final Trade Numbers

• Opening butterflies: $376 debit

• Upside calendar: $1,525 debit

• Calendar roll: $100 credit

• Closing proceeds: $1,995

• Gross profit: $194.00

• Total commissions: $33.52

• Final net profit: $160.48

The campaign finished $41.68 above its original target. OptionStrat shows the $194 gross result; the journal deducts commissions.

👉 View the completed position on OptionStrat
👉 Review the complete campaign history

Five campaigns are now complete. This one kept the original butterflies intact, used a calendar to adjust the position as SPX moved higher, and ended with a take-profit exit before expiration.

Disclaimer
All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Any trades or strategies should be tested in a simulated environment before use. Trading involves risk, and all decisions are the sole responsibility of the reader.

CME and Silicon Data have taken on this part of the AI economy. They have developed futures tied to the rental cost of NVIDIA H100 and B200 GPUs. The launch was planned for October 5, but on September 28, CME announced a delay pending the completion of regulatory review. As of October 11, the start date for trading remains uncertain. CME notice, revised contract specifications.

The idea is straightforward: a company buys a contract in advance whose value is linked to the price of compute. If compute gets more expensive, the profit on the contract helps cover the higher bill. This way of protecting against rising costs is called hedging.

One contract represents 730 GPU-hours, roughly one month of a single processor’s time. Settlement is in cash: when the contract ends, the parties settle in money. The company still has to arrange servers, access, and available capacity with its provider. CME specification.

Where the Protection Ends

The most important detail lies in the choice of price to which the contract is tied. CME uses indices of on-demand hourly rental rates in the neocloud segment: specialized providers outside the largest cloud platforms. Each company will have its own provider, region, discounts, and additional services. That means the index and the actual rental bill can rise at different rates. CME overview.

The clearest way to see this is in the numbers. All figures in the following example are hypothetical.

A company plans to use 73,000 GPU-hours. To protect against rising prices, it buys 100 contracts at $2.50 per hour. For simplicity, the index also starts at $2.50, while the company pays its provider $2.70.

By settlement, the average index for the month has risen to $3.00. The provider’s average rate over the same period has reached $3.40.

The futures position has earned $36,500: fifty cents of profit on each of the 73,000 hours. But the rental bill came to $248,200. After the offset, the company is left with $211,700, or $2.90 per hour. The budget assumed $2.70.

The hedge is profitable. The budget overrun is $14,600.

It all comes down to the provider’s premium over the index: it rose from twenty to forty cents. The contract offset the movement in the index, while the company had to cover the extra twenty cents for every hour.

This is basis risk: the gap between the price the hedge is designed to cover and the price of the actual purchase. In this example, consumption stays unchanged, the averaging periods match, and fees and financing costs are excluded. The monthly averaging mechanism itself is described in Silicon Data’s guide.

A Few More Bills to Pay

Compute needs have a life of their own, too. A product launch gets postponed, the company needs half as much server time, but the futures position stays the same. Some of the contracts now have no corresponding expenses to offset. Providers face a similar problem: protecting the rental rate does not, by itself, bring customers to idle capacity.

There is also the question of timing. Futures gains and losses are settled daily. If the price falls, the buyer has to pay cash into the position. Savings on rentals may come later. With a small cash cushion, that gap can cause serious trouble, even if the hedge ultimately makes economic sense. Silicon Data’s cash-flow analysis.

So What Does Oil Have to Do with It?

Compute is increasingly compared to an industrial resource: it is bought in large volumes, and entire industries depend on its cost. The arrival of futures makes the oil analogy especially tempting.

But the analogy has limits. Yesterday’s unused hour of compute cannot be put into storage. The contract’s payout is tied to GPU rentals; the price of oil plays no part in the calculation. And even successfully locking in the cost of compute says nothing about whether an AI product will find buyers.

Once the new market launches, it will be worth watching some very practical things: how easy it is to find a counterparty, how wide the gap is between buying and selling prices, and whether a large position can be closed without substantial execution losses. Questions about liquidity in the underlying market and safeguards against manipulation have already appeared in the CFTC’s request for comments. That does not establish that these were the reasons for the launch delay.

For an options trader, this kind of check is familiar: before choosing a structure, you need to understand which risk it actually covers and where losses could still arise.

Compute futures have a useful job to do: make an important cost item more predictable. Companies will have to work out the rest of AI’s economics themselves. The future can be as impressive as you like. The bills are arriving now.

Disclaimer

All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. This is a personal trading journal, not a trade-alert service. Options involve substantial risk, and SPX contracts can produce large and rapid changes in value. Any strategy should be tested in a simulated environment before real capital is used. All trading decisions remain the sole responsibility of the reader.

The recommended limit was 0.35 debit per butterfly. That order did not fill, so I entered using a market order in IBKR. The actual fill was 1.00 debit per butterfly, or $200 for the two-lot position. The reference and fill came from different moments, so the difference alone does not measure market-order slippage.

This Week’s Trade

Opened: Friday, October 9, 2026, at 10:35 a.m. ET
Underlying: SPX
Expiration: October 23, 2026 — 14 DTE
Structure: Put Broken Wing Butterfly, 40/55
Quantity: 2 contracts

Buy: 2 × 7,790 PUT @ 57.80
Sell: 4 × 7,750 PUT @ 43.20
Buy: 2 × 7,695 PUT @ 29.60

Net debit: $200
Entry commission: $10.24
Modeled starting risk: $3,200
Target net profit: $160

The target is 5% of the recorded starting risk, with profit measured after commissions.

At the 10:30 a.m. calculation, SPX was 7,793.02. The system selected 40/55 from four eligible candidates. It passed all six required conditions and had the lowest selection score, with slightly positive delta, positive theta, and negative vega.

👉 View the position on OptionStrat

Management Plan

I will review the campaign each trading day at 3:30 p.m. New York time.

The opening management levels are 7,790 on the upside and 7,760 on the downside. At a review, SPX above the upper level or at or below the lower level can call for a put-calendar adjustment under the strategy’s rules.

The net profit target is $160. Defensive and time-based exit rules also apply; the plan is to close before expiration.

👉 Follow A14 Campaign W6

Disclaimer

All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. This is a personal trading journal, not a trade-alert service. Options involve substantial risk, and SPX contracts can produce large and rapid changes in value. Any strategy should be tested in a simulated environment before real capital is used. All trading decisions remain the sole responsibility of the reader.

I was away from my computer but followed the strategy and entered with a market order. Today, Monday, October 5, I’m documenting that entry.

The system’s reference was 0.80 debit per butterfly at 10:30 a.m. ET. My actual fill at 10:37 was 1.88 debit. These prices come from different moments, so the difference alone does not measure MKT slippage.

This Week’s Trade

Opened: Friday, October 2, 2026, at 10:37 a.m. ET
Underlying: SPX
Expiration: Friday, October 16, 2026
Structure: Put Broken Wing Butterfly, 40/50
Quantity: 2 butterflies

Buy: 2 × 7,750 PUT @ 67.40
Sell: 4 × 7,710 PUT @ 51.71
Buy: 2 × 7,660 PUT @ 37.90

Net debit: $376
Commission: $10.24
Modeled starting risk: $2,376
Target net profit: $118.80

The target is 5% of the starting risk, with profit measured after commissions.

At calculation time, SPX was 7,748.83. The standard 40/60 shape failed the delta limit. The system selected 40/50 from three eligible candidates: it passed all six required conditions and had the lowest score, with nearly flat positive delta, positive theta, and negative vega.

The wider lower wing leaves more downside risk than upside risk at expiration.

👉 View the position on OptionStrat

Management Plan

The campaign is reviewed each trading day at 3:30 p.m. New York time.

The opening management levels are 7,750 on the upside and 7,720 on the downside. At a review, SPX above the upper level or at or below the lower level can call for a put-calendar adjustment under the strategy’s rules.

Friday’s first review recorded SPX at 7,723.05. Neither adjustment condition was met, so the decision was No action.

The net profit target remains $118.80. Defensive and time-based exit rules also apply; the plan is to close before expiration.

Follow the Campaign

I will document actual adjustments, fills, and commissions in the comments. The recorded position and reviews are available here:

👉 Follow A14 Campaign W5

A separate closing article will cover the final result and management decisions.

Disclaimer

All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. This is a personal trading journal, not a trade-alert service. Options involve substantial risk, and SPX contracts can produce large and rapid changes in value. Any strategy should be tested in a simulated environment before real capital is used. All trading decisions remain the sole responsibility of the reader.

The journal records $381.60 net profit, above the original $116 target, with one upside calendar adjustment.

I closed the position today, October 5. I could—and should—have closed it on October 2, when the system recommended taking profit. I was traveling, felt comfortable with the position, and chose to wait until Monday when I could sit down at my computer.

Here is how the trade unfolded.

From Entry to the First Decision

I opened two SPX put broken-wing butterflies on September 25, with an October 9 expiration and strikes at 7,700 / 7,660 / 7,610.

The campaign recorded a $320 entry debit, $2,320 modeled starting risk, and a $116 net profit target. This was also the entry where I deliberately tested a market order.

The first Friday review already called for an upside calendar, which I did not execute. By Monday, SPX had moved back below the upper long strike, and the recommendation returned to hold.

On September 29, SPX was 7,673.62 at the review—close to the 7,670 downside level, but still above it. No adjustment was triggered.

One Calendar Added

On September 30, a fresh check showed SPX at 7,717.69, back above the upper long. The system selected a 7,740 put calendar, which I opened at 11:23 a.m. ET:

Sell: 1 × Oct 9 7,740 PUT @ 69.40
Buy: 1 × Oct 16 7,740 PUT @ 88.90

Adjustment debit: $1,950
Commission: $3.26

The original butterflies stayed unchanged. This was the only adjustment I executed; the following reviews called for holding until the profit target was reached.

Friday’s Signal, Monday’s Exit

At the October 2, 3:30 p.m. ET review, the system estimated $360.10 net profit and recommended closing the entire position.

The target had been met. My decision to carry the trade over the weekend was a personal delay, not a new instruction from the strategy.

On Monday, October 5, at 9:47 a.m. ET, I closed all remaining legs for a 26.80 credit, receiving $2,680. Four calendar days remained before the front expiration.

The final result was slightly higher than Friday’s estimate. That worked out, but the extra weekend exposure could have gone the other way.

Final Trade Numbers

Opening butterflies: $320 debit
Upside calendar: $1,950 debit
Closing proceeds: $2,680
Gross profit: $410.00
Total commissions: $28.40
Final net profit: $381.60

The campaign finished $265.60 above its original target. OptionStrat shows the $410 gross result; the journal deducts commissions.

👉 View the completed position on OptionStrat
👉 Review the complete campaign history

Four campaigns are now complete. This one ended profitably, with a clear reminder for my own process: deciding when to exit also means making time to execute that decision.

Disclaimer
All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Any trades or strategies should be tested in a simulated environment before use. Trading involves risk, and all decisions are the sole responsibility of the reader.

The final result was +$373 after commissions, exceeding the original $115 target. I made one upside adjustment and mainly monitored the position after that, although I did not follow every recommendation the system produced.

The complete timeline is preserved in the public journal, including the reviews, actual execution, and final result.

✅ Recap: Sep 18 to Sep 30 — Target Exceeded

I opened two SPX put broken-wing butterflies on September 18, initially expiring October 2.

The starting construction was a 40/50 shape, with strikes at 7,630 / 7,590 / 7,540. The entry cost $300 before commissions, with $2,300 modeled starting risk and a $115 net profit target.

The first review that Friday already showed SPX above the upper long strike. The system recommended adding an upside calendar, but I did not execute it that evening.

By Monday, the market had moved further upward.

The One Adjustment I Made

On September 21, a fresh review showed SPX at 7,729.86. The system selected an upside put calendar at 7,750, which I opened at 11:33 a.m. ET:

Sell: 1 × Oct 2 7,750 PUT @ 63.10
Buy: 1 × Oct 9 7,750 PUT @ 78.30

Adjustment debit: $1,520
Commission: $3.26

The original butterfly remained unchanged. With the calendar added, the position contained five option legs across two expirations.

That was the only adjustment I actually executed during this campaign.

The Review Schedule Is Harder Than It Looks

The normal review time is 3:30 p.m. in New York. For me in Tashkent, that means 12:30 a.m. the following day.

Waiting until half past midnight every trading day is difficult. During this campaign, I mostly kept an eye on the position and left the single calendar in place.

That does not mean the system never called for another action.

On September 22, SPX reached 7,773.61 at the scheduled review, and the system recommended rolling the calendar from 7,750 to 7,795. I did not execute that roll.

At the following morning’s check, SPX had returned below 7,750, and the recommendation was to hold. Subsequent successful reviews also called for no adjustment until the profit target was reached.

One adjustment proved enough in this particular trade. But the actual management differed from the full sequence of system recommendations, and the journal should make that clear.

The Target Arrived Before the Actual Exit

At the September 29 review, the system estimated $141.50 net profit and recommended closing the entire position. The original $115 target had been reached.

That was another 12:30 a.m. review in my time zone. I did not close at that checkpoint; the position remained open until the next New York session.

On September 30 at 10:41 a.m. ET, I closed the full position for a 22.20 credit. The journal records the exit as Take Profit, with two days remaining before the front expiration.

The final fill produced more profit than the previous evening’s estimate. Waiting worked out this time, but the additional gain was not assured.

Final Trade Numbers

Opened: Friday, September 18, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. ET
Closed: Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 10:41 a.m. ET
Underlying: SPX
Options: SPXW puts
Expirations used: October 2 and October 9, 2026
Initial structure: Put Broken Wing Butterfly, shape 40/50
Size at entry: 2 butterfly spreads — 8 option contracts
Adjustments: 1 upside put calendar

Gross profit: +$400.00
Total commissions: $27.00
Final net profit: +$373.00

The accounting is straightforward: $2,220 received at closing, less $300 for the opening butterflies, $1,520 for the calendar, and $27 in total commissions.

The final result exceeded the original $115 target by $258.

OptionStrat shows the same $400 gross result before commissions. The campaign journal’s $373 is the final net result.

👉 View the completed position on OptionStrat
👉 Review the complete campaign history

A Good Result, With a Practical Constraint

The biggest challenge this time was staying available for the scheduled reviews. A once-daily routine sounds manageable until that appointment falls after midnight.

Three campaigns are now complete. This one finished with a single adjustment and a profit above target, while also showing where my actual routine diverges from the planned process.

Disclaimer
All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Any trades or strategies should be tested in a simulated environment before use. Trading involves risk, and all decisions are the sole responsibility of the reader.

This week, I deliberately chose a market order to test the execution. The system’s preliminary limit reference was 0.70 debit per butterfly; the entry recorded in the campaign is 1.60. Those prices come from different moments, so the gap alone does not measure the cost of using MKT.

This Week’s Trade

Opened: Friday, September 25, 2026, starting at 10:35 a.m. ET
Underlying: SPX
Expiration: Friday, October 9, 2026
Structure: Put Broken Wing Butterfly
Quantity: 2 contracts

Buy: 2 × 7,700 PUT
Sell: 4 × 7,660 PUT
Buy: 2 × 7,610 PUT

The campaign currently records:

Net debit: $320
Commission: $11.64
Modeled starting risk: $2,320
Target net profit: $116

The target is 5% of the recorded starting risk, with profit measured after commissions.

The system selected the 40/50 shape from four eligible candidates. It passed all six required conditions and had the lowest selection score, with nearly flat, slightly positive delta, positive theta, and negative vega at calculation time.

The upper long sits near SPX’s 7,704 selection-time level, with the short puts at 7,660. The lower wing is wider, leaving more downside risk than upside risk at expiration.

👉 View the position on OptionStrat

Management Plan

I will review the campaign each trading day at 3:30 p.m. New York time, checking SPX, the complete position, and net P/L.

The opening management levels are 7,700 on the upside and 7,670 on the downside. At a review, SPX above the upper level or at or below the lower level can call for a put-calendar adjustment under the strategy’s rules.

The recorded net profit target is $116. Defensive and time-based exit rules also apply; the plan is to close before expiration.

Follow the Campaign

I will add actual adjustments, fills, and commissions in the comments. The dashboard tracks the campaign’s recorded position and reviews:

👉 Follow A14 Campaign W4

A separate closing article will cover the final result and the decisions along the way.

Disclaimer

All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. This is a personal trading journal, not a trade-alert service. Options involve substantial risk, and SPX contracts can produce large and rapid changes in value. Any strategy should be tested in a simulated environment before real capital is used. All trading decisions remain the sole responsibility of the reader.

There was no new trade last Friday, September 11. My limit order never filled, and I decided not to switch to a market order to force an entry. With entries scheduled for Fridays, I let that week pass rather than move the trade to another day.

This Friday’s entry filled. Here is the position and the plan.

This Week’s Trade

Opened: Friday, September 18, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. ET
Underlying: SPX
Expiration: Friday, October 2, 2026
Structure: Put Broken Wing Butterfly
Quantity: 2 contracts

Buy: 2 × 7,630 PUT @ 67.30
Sell: 4 × 7,590 PUT @ 52.70
Buy: 2 × 7,540 PUT @ 39.60

Net debit: $300
Commission: $10.24
Modeled starting risk: $2,300
Target net profit: $115

The target is 5% of the starting risk, with profit measured after commissions.

This entry uses a 40/50 shape: 40 points between the upper long and short puts, and 50 points between the shorts and lower long. The system selected it from the eligible candidates, with nearly flat, slightly positive delta, positive theta, and negative vega at calculation time.

The preliminary midpoint was 0.65 debit per butterfly; my actual fill was 1.50. The risk and target above reflect that actual fill.

👉 View the actual position on OptionStrat

Management Plan

I will review the campaign each trading day at 3:30 p.m. New York time, checking SPX, the full position’s value, and the net result.

The opening management levels are 7,630 on the upside and 7,600 on the downside. At a scheduled review, a move above the upper level or to the lower level or below can call for a put-calendar adjustment under the strategy’s rules.

I will close the campaign if the $115 net target is reached. Defensive and time-based exit rules also apply; the plan is to exit before expiration.

Actual adjustments, fills, and commissions will go in the comments below.

Follow the Campaign

The public dashboard tracks the position, executions, reviews, and costs:

👉 Follow A14 Campaign W3

Once the campaign closes, I will publish a separate article covering the result and the decisions along the way.

Disclaimer

All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. This is a personal trading journal, not a trade-alert service. Options involve substantial risk, and SPX contracts can produce large and rapid changes in value. Any strategy should be tested in a simulated environment before real capital is used. All trading decisions remain the sole responsibility of the reader.

The final result was +$203.34 after commissions, exceeding the original $150.50 target. But the path was not clean: the automated review failed, both adjustments required manual execution decisions, and I ultimately chose not to follow the system’s exit recommendation.

The complete timeline is preserved in the public journal, making this trade more useful to document than a simple win.

✅ Recap: Sep 04 to Sep 11 — Target Reached

I opened two SPX Put Broken Wing Butterfly spreads on September 4, initially expiring September 18.

The starting position was:

Buy: 2 × 7,730 PUT @ 72.10
Sell: 4 × 7,690 PUT @ 55.30
Buy: 2 × 7,635 PUT @ 38.55

The initial structure was the intended 40/55 shape, and the first review required no action. On September 4, SPX was 7,714.08—above the 7,700 downside level and below the 7,730 upper long.

The position remained unchanged through the long weekend.

When the Automation Failed

The first real complication arrived on September 8.

SPX moved below the 7,700 downside level, but the automated analysis failed because required market data was unavailable. A second attempt also failed, so no normal system-generated order reached me.

I handled downside stage 1 manually and added one 7,660 put calendar:

Sell: 1 × Sep 18 7,660 PUT @ 54.80
Buy: 1 × Sep 25 7,660 PUT @ 70.80

Adjustment debit: $1,600
Commission: $3.26

Because the automated workflow had broken, I again used a market order rather than working a clean system-generated limit order. The adjustment was completed at 4:01 p.m. ET.

This was an operational failure, not a strategy decision. The trade still needed management, but the process did not work as designed.

A Second Adjustment — and Another Execution Compromise

At the September 9 review, SPX had fallen further to 7,645.84.

The system called for downside stage 2: rolling one of the two September 18 lower long puts at 7,635 into the September 25 expiration.

The recommended BAG limit was a 16.25 debit. IBKR did not fill the order at that price, so I raised the limit and completed the roll at 16.70 debit:

Sell: 1 × Sep 18 7,635 PUT @ 57.30
Buy: 1 × Sep 25 7,635 PUT @ 74.00

Adjustment debit: $1,670
Commission: $3.26

The difference between the recommended midpoint and the actual fill was $45 before commission. Some movement during execution is unavoidable, but this was another reminder that a theoretical midpoint is not always immediately tradable.

After the second adjustment, the position contained six open option legs across the September 18 and September 25 expirations.

The Exit Signal I Chose Not to Follow

The most important decision came on September 10.

At the 3:30 p.m. ET review, SPX was 7,588.76. The expected rebound had not occurred, and the system recommended closing the entire position.

Its midpoint estimate showed a net loss of approximately $756.76 if closed at that moment.

I decided not to follow that recommendation.

More than a week remained before the front expiration, and I made a discretionary judgment to give the position another session. This was an expert override—not the strategy’s prescribed action—and it increased the risk of a larger loss if the market continued lower.

The decision happened to work this time. That does not prove that ignoring an exit signal is generally correct.

On Friday morning, SPX rebounded sharply toward 7,671. At 10:17 a.m. ET, the Take Profit order in TWS filled, closing the entire position for a 35.15 credit.

Final Trade Numbers

Opened: Friday, September 4, 2026, at 11:04 a.m. ET
Closed: Friday, September 11, 2026, at 10:17 a.m. ET
Underlying: SPX
Options: SPXW puts
Expirations used: September 18 and September 25, 2026
Initial structure: Put Broken Wing Butterfly, shape 40/55
Size at entry: 2 butterfly spreads — 8 option contracts
Adjustments: 2 downside adjustments

Gross profit: +$235.00
Total commissions: $31.66
Final net profit: +$203.34

The final result exceeded the $150.50 target by $52.84 and represents approximately 6.76% of the original $3,010 modeled starting risk.

OptionStrat shows the same $235 gross result before commissions. The campaign journal’s $203.34 figure is the final net result after every recorded commission.

👉 View the completed position on OptionStrat
👉 Review the complete campaign history

A profitable result does not make every decision behind it correct.

The main lesson is to improve the process: build a reliable backup for failed alerts, stay disciplined with complex order execution, and clearly separate systematic decisions from personal judgment.

Two campaigns completed, with plenty still to learn.

Disclaimer
All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Any trades or strategies should be tested in a simulated environment before use. Trading involves risk, and all decisions are the sole responsibility of the reader.

✅ Recap: Aug 28 to Sep 04 Trade — Full Profit

I opened two SPX Put Broken Wing Butterfly spreads on August 28, initially expiring September 11.

The recommended setup was delta shape 40–55:

While entering the order in TWS, I selected the 7630 lower long put instead of 7635, leaving me with a 40–60 structure. Those numbers describe the distances between the central short strike and each wing.

A simple input mistake, but one that changed the position. I kept the actual strikes in the journal and used that configuration for the subsequent reviews and adjustments.

Execution was another lesson. I used market orders to get things done quickly. The system’s MID-based limit prices looked more attractive, and I could have given limit orders time to work.

For example, the second adjustment was quoted at 21.55 debit during the review and recorded at 22.20 when entered. The market moved between those timestamps, so the difference cannot all be attributed to execution quality. Still, it reinforced the value of controlling the price. I already used a limit order for the second campaign.

How SPX Moved

SPX was 7729.89 at the initial calculation. By the September 1 review, it had fallen to 7627.83 — a decline of roughly 102 points, or 1.32%.

It then rebounded sharply, reaching 7751.13 at the September 3 review, before pulling back to 7713.93 at the September 4 review. The final session closed at 7718.60, only about 0.15% below the starting reference.

The week ended close to where it began, but holding the position through it involved a meaningful drop, a rebound, and two adjustments.

Two Adjustments, Then Patience

On August 31, SPX fell below the 7700 downside trigger. I added one 7670 put calendar: short September 11 and long September 18, for a $2,120 debit.

On September 1, SPX was below the level recorded at the first adjustment. I completed downside stage 2 by rolling one of the two September 11 long 7630 puts to September 18, for a further $2,220 debit. That brought the position to six open legs.

The September 2 and 3 reviews required no action, so I continued to hold. I skipped posting updates on those two days because there was nothing new to report.

One detail worth remembering: on September 3, SPX had already rebounded, but the position’s estimated net P/L at the review was still around −$462. A rising index alone was not enough to reach the target.

On September 4, the 15:30 ET review triggered Take Profit. The journal records the close at 15:32 ET, with a final net result of +$249.74.

You can inspect the prices, adjustments, and daily decisions in the complete campaign history.

What Helped the Trade Work

By September 4, SPX had returned to a more favorable area for the adjusted position, and another day had passed. Changes in option prices across both expirations brought the combined position above the profit target.

The calendars changed how the trade responded to the market. Time decay also contributed, although this trade alone cannot tell us exactly how much profit came from each factor.

For me, the most useful part was having a clear routine: review once a day, adjust when the rules call for it, leave the position alone when they do not, and close when the target is reached.

Final Trade Numbers

Opened: Friday, August 28, 2026, at 10:34 AM ET
Closed: Friday, September 4, 2026, at 3:32 PM ET
Underlying: SPX
Options: SPXW puts
Expirations: September 11 and September 18, 2026
Initial structure: Put Broken Wing Butterfly, shape 40–60
Size: 2 butterfly spreads — 8 option contracts at entry

Buy: 2 × 7730 PUT @ 56.20
Sell: 4 × 7690 PUT @ 41.80
Buy: 2 × 7630 PUT @ 27.80

Opening Debit: $80.00
Adjustments: 2 downside adjustments
Cumulative Debit Before Closing: $4,420.00
Closing Proceeds: $4,700.00

Gross Profit: +$280.00
Total Commissions: $30.26
Net Profit: +$249.74

The target was 5% of the $4,080 modeled starting risk. The final result represents approximately 6.12% of that same starting basis. This percentage uses the initial risk calculation; account returns and the adjusted position’s risk require separate measures.

👉 View the completed position on OptionStrat

My Takeaway

Managing this many legs felt a little complicated, especially on the first attempt. There are strikes, expirations, quantities, and execution prices to keep straight. A careful order check is clearly worth the extra minute.

What keeps me interested is that I do not have to predict SPX’s next direction before entering. The strategy gives me a framework for responding as the market moves. Price, volatility, and the path SPX takes still matter, and losses remain possible.

The A14 public dashboard now shows the first campaign as closed, alongside the next trade.

A few rough edges, two adjustments, and a positive first result. I have lessons to carry forward — and the journey continues.

Disclaimer
All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Any trades or strategies should be tested in a simulated environment before use. Trading involves risk, and all decisions are the sole responsibility of the reader.

This is the second trade in the public journal I started last week. As before, this opening post records the position as it was actually entered. I will follow it with a separate closing article when the campaign is complete.

The goal is to keep an honest record of the strategy in practice — from each entry and fill to the daily decisions, adjustments, costs, mistakes, and final outcome.

This Week’s Trade

Opened: Friday, September 4, 2026, at 11:04 a.m. ET
Underlying: SPX
Expiration: Friday, September 18, 2026
Structure: Put Broken Wing Butterfly
Quantity: 2 contracts

Buy: 2 × 7,730 PUT @ 72.10
Sell: 4 × 7,690 PUT @ 55.30
Buy: 2 × 7,635 PUT @ 38.55

Net debit: $10
Commission: $10.24
Modeled starting risk: $3,010
Target net profit: $150.50

The campaign’s target is 5% of the modeled starting risk—not 5% of the opening debit and not 5% of the account. The $150.50 target is measured after commissions.

👉 View the actual position on OptionStrat

Management Plan

This position will be actively managed rather than held unchanged until expiration.

I will review the campaign each trading day, normally at 3:30 p.m. New York time, using the current SPX level, the value of the full position, the relevant management thresholds, and the net result after commissions.

If the $150.50 net profit target is reached, I will close the campaign. A sufficiently large move in either direction may instead trigger a put-calendar adjustment or another predefined defensive action. The position may also be closed early if a mandatory exit condition is reached or further adjustment no longer makes economic sense.

I will record every actual adjustment, fill, and commission in the comments below. The complete trade will be covered in a separate article after the campaign ends.

Follow the Campaign

The complete factual state of this trade—including the actual contracts, executions, reviews, commissions, and eventual result—is available on the public dashboard:

👉 Follow A14 Campaign W2

After the position is closed, I will return with a full breakdown of the outcome and the decisions made along the way.

Campaign number two is now underway. Let’s see where it leads.

Disclaimer

All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. This is a personal trading journal, not a trade-alert service. Options involve substantial risk, and SPX contracts can produce large and rapid changes in value. Any strategy should be tested in a simulated environment before real capital is used. All trading decisions remain the sole responsibility of the reader.

This is also the first trade in the public journal I announced earlier. Every campaign will have an opening post like this one, followed by a separate closing article when the position is complete.

The objective is not to present a perfect sequence of trades. It is to document what actually happens: the entries, fills, commissions, reviews, adjustments, mistakes, and final results.

This Week’s Trade

Opened: Friday, August 28, 2026, at 10:34 a.m. ET
Underlying: SPX
Expiration: Friday, September 11, 2026
Structure: Put Broken Wing Butterfly
Quantity: 2 contracts

Buy: 2 × 7,730 PUT @ 56.20
Sell: 4 × 7,690 PUT @ 41.80
Buy: 2 × 7,630 PUT @ 27.80

Net debit: $80
Commission: $10.24
Modeled starting risk: $4,080
Target net profit: $204

The campaign’s target is 5% of the modeled starting risk—not 5% of the opening debit and not 5% of the account. The $204 target is measured after commissions.

👉 View the actual position on OptionStrat

A Small but Important Execution Note

The system recommended 7,635 as the lower long-put strike.

When entering the order in IBKR, I selected 7,630 instead. This was not an intentional adjustment to the strategy—it was simply my own inattention while entering the first trade.

I decided to leave the position exactly as filled rather than rewrite the trade after the fact. The live journal therefore records the actual 7,630 contract, and all risk calculations and future management decisions will be based on the position that truly exists in IBKR.

That is part of the purpose of this project: to document the real process, including execution mistakes, rather than publish a cleaned-up version afterward.

Management Plan

This is not a butterfly that I plan to open and simply hold until expiration.

The campaign will be reviewed once per trading day, normally around 3:30 p.m. New York time. Each review will consider the current SPX level, the value of the complete position, its management levels, and the net result after commissions.

Any adjustment resulting from these daily reviews will be documented by me in the comments under this article. I will post each actual action, fill, and commission from my own account so readers can follow the campaign as it develops. I will not publish a separate article for every adjustment—the next full article will be published after the campaign is closed.

If the $204 net profit target is reached, I will close the campaign.

If SPX moves far enough above or below the opening structure, the A14 rules may call for a put-calendar adjustment or another predefined defensive action. Any actual adjustment will be documented with its fills and commissions.

The position will also be closed before expiration if the mandatory exit condition is reached or if another adjustment no longer makes economic sense.

Follow the Campaign

The complete factual state of this trade—including the actual contracts, executions, reviews, commissions, and eventual result—is available on the public dashboard:

👉 Follow A14 Campaign W1

When the campaign ends, I will publish a separate closing article with the complete result and a review of how the position developed.

This is the first campaign. The record starts here.

Disclaimer

All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. This is a personal trading journal, not a trade-alert service. Options involve substantial risk, and SPX contracts can produce large and rapid changes in value. Any strategy should be tested in a simulated environment before real capital is used. All trading decisions remain the sole responsibility of the reader.

My directional 30 DTE Broken Wing Butterflies will continue as a separate trading system.

How I Got Here

Since July 2025, this publication has never been about one permanent strategy. It has become a public trading lab where I define rules, put structures to work, document the results, and change course when real evidence exposes a weakness.

🧪 My first major experiment was a weekly QQQ Bull Put Spread.

Over 25 weeks, I placed 24 trades. All 24 were profitable, producing a total net result of $11,597 with no losing weeks.

On paper, that looked nearly perfect. It also taught me the difference between a high win rate and a robust trading system.

The strategy regularly tied up about $25,000 to make roughly $500 per week. One violent Friday selloff in QQQ could erase a large portion of the accumulated gains—or, in the worst case, threaten the entire allocated account.

The risk was technically defined. The distribution of that risk was still unacceptable: many small wins against one potentially devastating loss.

I ended the experiment despite its 100% win rate. It had been traded in a paper account, and I was not willing to move it into real capital in its existing form.

🧪 At the same time, I was trading 10-delta credit spreads with real money.

I looked for stocks and ETFs showing extended price action, elevated RSI, and signs of momentum exhaustion. I would then sell a distant 10-delta spread—usually a Bear Call Spread after a strong rally.

The trade did not require me to call the exact top. The underlying could move slightly higher, stall, or reverse. It only needed to remain below the short strike through expiration.

The framework performed well for about nine months. I publicly documented 52 structured trades built around the same probability-driven process.

But low delta does not remove risk. It only moves that risk farther away.

MU made that clear in May. The stock continued far beyond the expected exhaustion zone, moved through both strikes, and the Bear Call Spread closed at maximum loss.

That loss did not invalidate the underlying market logic. Selling rich premium around an extended move with predefined risk still made sense.

The structure was the problem.

A short-duration vertical spread leaves little room for timing error. As expiration approaches, gamma accelerates and the position becomes increasingly sensitive to the underlying. If momentum continues longer than expected, there may be very little time—or flexibility—left to manage it.

🔄 That led to the next phase: moving from credit spreads to Broken Wing Butterflies.

I kept the original market logic but changed how I expressed it. Instead of using a narrow weekly vertical, I moved toward asymmetric Broken Wing Butterflies opened around 30 DTE.

The longer duration provides more time, a different risk shape, and less dependence on one expiration-day outcome.

I continue to trade and develop that framework. Depending on the setup, I can use calls or puts, typically placing the body near 20 delta.

But it is still directional.

Before entering, I must decide which move looks extended, where momentum may stall, and where I want the primary risk. A more flexible structure does not eliminate the original thesis. If the market continues hard enough against it, a Broken Wing Butterfly can still reach maximum loss.

My trading has therefore evolved through three clear stages:

• a weekly QQQ Bull Put Spread with a perfect record but unacceptable tail risk;

• live 10-delta credit spreads, where one maximum loss exposed the cost of directional asymmetry;

• 30 DTE Broken Wing Butterflies, which added time and improved the shape of the risk.

That progression led to a different question:

🤔 Can I build a core strategy that does not begin with a mandatory directional call?

Instead of searching every week for an overextended stock, I wanted a repeatable structure on a broad index—one that starts near neutral and responds to what the market actually does.

That search led me to A14.

What Is the A14 Strategy?

A14 is a short-duration, rules-based strategy traded with SPX options.

A new position is typically opened each Friday at roughly 14 DTE. The starting structure is a put Broken Wing Butterfly with defined initial risk and near-neutral delta.

But A14 is better understood as a campaign, not a single trade.

A complete campaign may include:

• the initial Broken Wing Butterfly;

• predefined management levels;

• once-daily reviews;

• upside or downside calendars;

• adjustments to existing protection;

• a profit target;

• a mandatory exit plan.

The opening butterfly is only the starting point. The strategy’s real identity comes from how the entire position is managed as SPX moves.

A14 is not a passive butterfly opened and forgotten until expiration.

The Starting Put Broken Wing Butterfly

One put Broken Wing Butterfly uses four contracts across three strikes:

• buy one upper-strike put;

• sell two puts at a lower strike;

• buy one additional put farther below the market.

The ratio is:

+1 / −2 / +1.

A standard butterfly has equal-width wings. A Broken Wing Butterfly deliberately makes one wing wider than the other.

That asymmetry changes the trade’s entry price, profit zone, directional exposure, and maximum risk.

My implementation begins with two butterflies:

+2 upper puts / −4 body puts / +2 lower puts.

The upper long puts sit near the current SPX level. The four short puts form the body below the market, while the two lower long puts define the downside risk.

I select the final strikes with the goal of starting near delta-neutral or slightly short delta.

That does not make the position risk-free. Delta is only a snapshot of current directional exposure. It changes as SPX moves, time passes, and implied volatility shifts.

A near-neutral start simply prevents the campaign from becoming a large directional bet at entry.

Why A14 Uses SPX

SPX options provide exposure to the S&P 500 Index rather than a single company.

They also have several practical advantages for a multi-leg campaign:

• cash settlement;

• European-style exercise;

• no delivery of shares;

• no early-assignment risk;

• frequent expirations;

• deep liquidity.

These characteristics are documented in the official Cboe SPX specifications.

For an actively managed structure, eliminating early-assignment and unwanted-share risk matters. I can focus on the full options position rather than worrying that one short leg may be assigned before the rest of the campaign is ready to close.

SPX is still a large contract. Defined risk does not mean small risk, and a two-lot A14 campaign requires sufficient capital and liquidity.

How A14 Handles Different Market Regimes

A directional trade starts with a forecast. The trader chooses a bullish or bearish thesis first and then selects a structure to express it.

A14 reverses that sequence.

The campaign begins near delta-neutral. Management decisions then respond to the actual location of SPX relative to the position.

Instead of repeatedly asking where the market will go next, I can ask more objective questions:

• Where is SPX relative to the butterfly?

• How has the campaign’s total delta changed?

• Has a predefined management level been reached?

• Does the rule set require an adjustment?

• Is the likely benefit of that adjustment worth its cost and added risk?

If SPX remains near the opening area, the short options can benefit from time decay.

If the index moves higher, an upside put calendar may be added to reshape delta and place value closer to the new market level.

If SPX falls, a separate downside sequence may add a lower calendar or move part of the existing protection into a later expiration.

This is why A14 is not tied to a permanently bullish, bearish, or sideways forecast. It begins near neutral and allows the position to evolve as the market reveals its direction.

That does not mean A14 “wins in every market.” No strategy does.

A fast move, volatility shock, poor execution, expensive adjustment, or sharp reversal after an adjustment can still produce a loss. Adaptability gives the campaign more tools; it does not eliminate risk/

Who Created A14?

A14 was created by options trader and educator Amy Meissner.

According to the published history, Amy began developing and live-trading the ideas behind A14 in September 2020. The strategy was publicly introduced in December 2021, with the original announcement still available through Aeromir.

Amy presents A14 as a weekly, market-neutral, fully rules-based strategy that generally requires one scheduled review per day.

Her official materials also report an approximately 85% win rate and a 229% net return during the original 15-month period.

Those are results reported by the strategy’s creator. They are not my results, an independent audit, or a forecast of what my implementation will produce.

The full proprietary A14 rules are sold through Amy’s educational programs.

As of August 2026, A14 Core is listed at a promotional price of $497, versus a stated regular price of $697. The A14 Complete package, including the advanced material and the first month of trade alerts, is listed at $997. Continued access to the alerts is offered at $129 per month after the first month.

That is a meaningful cost—especially for someone who does not yet know whether the strategy fits their capital, schedule, or risk tolerance.

I chose the research route.

Building My Own A14 Implementation

My objective is not to create a free copy of Amy Meissner’s paid course.

I do not claim to know or reproduce every proprietary rule in the original methodology. My implementation is based on Amy’s official public materials, open presentations, public trade examples, third-party research, and my own documented conventions.

One of the most useful primary sources is Amy’s publicly available 2023 A14 class presentation.

The public material establishes much of the strategy’s foundation:

• entry at approximately 14 DTE;

• a put Broken Wing Butterfly;

• the general starting geometry;

• neutral to slightly negative delta;

• a defined profit target;

• an upside adjustment using a put calendar;

• several possible downside defenses;

• an exit before expiration.

That is enough to understand the architecture, but not enough to produce a fully deterministic trading system.

Instructions such as “add a calendar if needed” or “move protection after a further decline” leave critical decisions undefined.

A systematic implementation needs exact answers:

• What price level triggers the action?

• When is the condition evaluated?

• Which strike is selected?

• How many contracts are used?

• What happens after the first adjustment?

• Can an adjustment be repeated?

• When does management stop?

• How are risk, profit, and commissions calculated?

I replaced those missing decisions with my own explicit rules and separated them from what Amy has disclosed publicly.

The accurate description is therefore:

This is an independently specified implementation based on the public A14 framework—not a claim that I have reproduced every proprietary rule of the original strategy.

My Initial A14 Setup

These are the operating rules at launch.

Underlying

Every campaign uses SPX options.

I am not automatically transferring the rules to SPY, QQQ, or individual stocks. Other underlyings have different contract sizes, exercise styles, liquidity, strike intervals, skew, and volatility behavior.

Entry Schedule

A new campaign is prepared every Friday at approximately 14 DTE.

I evaluate the opening structure around 10:30 a.m. New York time, after the first wave of opening volatility has passed.

If the option chain is stale, incomplete, or internally inconsistent, I will not force a trade simply because it is Friday.

A skipped campaign is better than a position built from unreliable data.

Position Size

The initial position consists of two put Broken Wing Butterflies:

+2 / −4 / +2 contracts.

Keeping the size constant allows me to compare campaigns without distorting the results through changing contract counts or compounding.

Strike Selection

The upper long put is selected near the current SPX level.

The short puts form the body below the market. The farther long puts define the wider downside wing and cap the initial risk.

The public A14 geometry serves as the starting point, but I choose the final structure using total position delta and executable market prices.

The objective is a liquid, reasonably priced position that begins near delta-neutral or slightly short delta.

Profit Target

The initial profit target is 5% of the modeled starting capital allocation after commissions.

That is not 5% of the entire account, nor is it 5% of the opening debit or credit. I use one consistent risk-based denominator so campaign results remain comparable.

If the target is reached, I close the campaign. I am not holding for the last theoretical dollar in the payoff graph.

Daily Review

The main position review takes place once per trading day, approximately 30 minutes before the close.

The review covers:

• the current SPX level;

• SPX relative to the campaign strikes;

• the value of each position component;

• total campaign delta;

• any open calendars;

• predefined management levels;

• net P/L after commissions;

• time remaining to expiration.

The goal is to remove constant intervention. I should not adjust the campaign simply because one intraday candle looks uncomfortable.

Upside Management

If SPX moves above the initial butterfly and meets the predefined conditions, I may add an upside put calendar.

For two opening butterflies, the adjustment uses one calendar:

• sell one put in the front expiration;

• buy one put at the same strike in the following expiration;

• place the calendar near the market’s new location.

This is not a separate bearish trade. Its purpose is to reshape the campaign’s delta and add value closer to the rising index.

If SPX continues higher, the calendar may be rolled according to a separate rule.

Downside Management

A different sequence applies when SPX falls.

At the first downside management level, any existing upside calendar is closed and a lower put calendar may be added.

If SPX continues falling after that adjustment, part of the lower-wing protection can be moved into the later expiration.

The number of defensive actions is limited.

Each new leg adds cost, commissions, volatility exposure, reversal risk, and execution complexity. If the next adjustment is unlikely to improve the campaign materially, the correct action is to exit—not keep repairing the position indefinitely.

Final Exit

A14 is not intended to be held automatically through expiration.

The campaign closes when:

• the profit target is reached;

• a full-exit condition is triggered;

• another adjustment no longer makes economic sense;

• the mandatory time exit is reached.

My initial implementation will not hold a campaign beyond two days to expiration.

Gamma risk rises sharply near expiration. At that stage, a small SPX move can change the campaign’s delta and value quickly, making the remaining theoretical profit less attractive than a controlled exit.

How I Run Each Campaign

A14 is a multi-stage strategy. Opening the butterfly is only the first step; the campaign may later include calendars, rolls, defensive adjustments, and a coordinated exit across several positions.

I used Codex to turn my A14 research into a structured operating workflow. The system calculates the opening setup, freezes the management levels, tracks the current campaign state, monitors adjustment conditions, and keeps the net result updated as executions and commissions are added.

It does not place trades or make the final decision for me. I execute every order through my broker and remain responsible for every adjustment. The tooling gives me a consistent framework for running the same process week after week without rebuilding the campaign manually each time.

A14 vs. 30 DTE Broken Wing Butterflies

Both systems use Broken Wing Butterflies, but they are not the same strategy.

My 30 DTE Broken Wing Butterflies begin with a directional thesis on a specific stock or ETF. I evaluate the price structure and choose a call or put construction based on the setup.

A14 trades only SPX. It starts near neutral and follows a separate weekly management process.

One strategy expresses a directional view with a flexible payoff. The other is a repeatable broad-index campaign that does not require a directional forecast at entry.

Their trades, statistics, and conclusions will remain separate.

Questions I Had to Answer Before Trading A14

Is A14 completely market-neutral?

Only at the start, and only approximately.

The opening position is constructed near delta-neutral, but its exposure changes as SPX moves, time passes, and implied volatility shifts. A14 is better described as a near-neutral starting position with managed directional exposure.

Can A14 make money in every market?

No strategy can guarantee that.

A14 is designed to be managed through rising, falling, and sideways conditions. A fast move, volatility shock, poor fill, expensive adjustment, or sharp reversal can still produce a loss.

Is the risk defined?

The opening Broken Wing Butterfly has a calculable maximum risk.

A complete campaign may later include calendars and expiration changes. The risk profile must therefore be recalculated after every adjustment.

Does A14 require constant monitoring?

The core process uses one scheduled review per day.

My infrastructure may monitor the profit target between reviews, but management decisions are not meant to be made every few minutes.

Are these campaigns trade alerts?

No.

The public campaigns show how I trade A14 in real time. They are not trade alerts. Prices change, account sizes differ, and multi-leg SPX positions can move quickly. Anyone studying the strategy should test it in a simulated environment before risking capital.

Follow the A14 Strategy

I built a separate public dashboard for active and completed campaigns:

Follow A14 Campaigns

It will show the actual state of each campaign: opening structure, executions, daily reviews, adjustments, commissions, and final result.

Longer research articles and post-trade reviews will be published in the dedicated section:

A14 Weekly SPX Strategy

This is not a signal service or an attempt to manufacture a flawless equity curve.

It is the next stage of 10 Delta Playbook: one systematic strategy, real capital, predefined rules, and a complete record of every decision.

The first public A14 campaign launches Friday, August 28, 2026.

All subscribers are invited to follow along—I welcome thoughtful questions and discussion as the campaign unfolds.

Disclaimer
All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Any trades or strategies should be tested in a simulated environment before use. Trading involves risk, and all decisions are the sole responsibility of the reader.

AAPL finished at $313.25, well below the first 330 call strike. All three legs expired worthless, allowing the full $312 credit to be captured.

What Was Opened

When the trade was opened, AAPL already looked stretched after a sharp rebound into the upper end of its recent range.

The stock kept pushing higher for another couple of weeks, but the technical picture was becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Momentum was extended, price was pressing into resistance, and the setup was pointing to a loss of upside momentum rather than another clean leg higher.

The move finally reset around the late-July earnings window.

AAPL rolled over sharply, momentum weakened, and the stock moved back below the area that had looked overheated at entry. From there, the position had exactly the environment it needed: no sustained upside follow-through and plenty of distance from the 330 call strike.

The timing took patience, but the original technical read ultimately played out cleanly.

Trade Recap

Entry Date: July 9, 2026
Expiration: August 7, 2026
Contracts: 3

Long Call: 330C
Short Calls: 335C
Upper Long Call: 360C

Credit Received: $312
Broker Commissions: -$6.41
Net P/L After Broker Fees: +$306

👉 View on OptionStrat
👉 View in Trade Log

Final Takeaway

One more thing is worth watching here: AAPL’s weekly chart.

Last week produced what is effectively a bearish engulfing reversal after the stock had stretched into the $340 area. The rejection was sharp, the prior upside momentum broke, and price closed the week back near $310.

That changes the short-term picture.

Until AAPL can reclaim that failed breakout area, I would treat the weekly setup as bearish for the next several weeks and expect rallies to face more resistance than they did during the July advance.

The options trade is finished. The chart may not be😎

Disclaimer  

All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.Any trades or strategies should be tested in a simulated environment before use.Trading involves risk, and all decisions are the sole responsibility of the reader.

I would find an interesting stock in TC2000, study the daily, weekly and monthly charts, check whether the move was extended, and mark the levels that mattered. Then I would open other resources to review expiration dates, expected move, implied volatility, earnings, and the option chain. If a possible structure began to make sense, I would move to OptionStrat and start testing strikes.

This workflow gave me plenty of information, but it left one important decision entirely manual.

I could explain why the underlying was interesting. I could also build almost any options structure once I had chosen it. The difficult part was deciding which structure deserved attention in the first place.

A strong chart does not answer that question. Neither does an option chain. Even a good payoff calculator expects me to arrive with a strategy already in mind.

Over time, I realized that this gap was taking up more of my research than the actual construction of the trade. I was repeatedly combining the same pieces of information and trying to decide whether the current setup called for a credit spread, a debit spread, a butterfly, a condor, a ratio structure, or something else.

That is the problem I built Options Playbook to solve.

Strategy Selection Comes Before Trade Construction

Many options tools are designed around a strategy-first workflow.

You select a call spread, a butterfly, an iron condor, or another structure. Then you choose the underlying, expiration, and strikes before adjusting the position.

That is useful once the strategy has already been selected.

My own research usually begins from the opposite direction. I first find an underlying that deserves attention. I then need to understand what the chart, expiration, volatility, expected move, earnings calendar, and option chain collectively suggest.

Only after that do I want to choose the structure.

This distinction may sound small, but it changes the entire workflow.

Suppose AAPL is in an established daily uptrend, but the recent advance has already pushed momentum into moderately extended territory. Earnings are approaching, and the options market is pricing an expected move around the event.

Several strategies may appear reasonable in this situation, but each one expresses a different assumption. A Bear Call Spread and a Call Broken Wing Butterfly can both express caution after an extended move, but they behave differently if momentum continues. A Long Put Spread may benefit from a direct reversal, while a premium-selling structure may only need the stock to stop advancing. A long volatility position may appear attractive before earnings, but it still has to overcome the movement already priced into the options.

The selected expiration changes this comparison further. A position that ends before earnings represents a different trade from one that carries the announcement. Calling the setup simply “bullish,” “bearish,” or “neutral” does not provide enough information to choose the structure.

The stock idea is only the beginning. Choosing an options strategy requires a more precise description of what I expect to happen and how I want the position to respond if I am early, partially right, or completely wrong.

Five Questions Before Choosing the Structure

The decision becomes more manageable when the setup is reduced to five practical questions.

🤔 What is the underlying doing?

The daily chart describes the current move, while the weekly chart shows whether it agrees with the broader trend. A short-term rally inside a weak weekly structure is a different setup from a rally supported by both timeframes.

🤔 How extended is the move?

Direction alone is not enough. RSI, momentum, and the recent price path help distinguish a move that may still have room from one that is already stretched and more vulnerable to a pause or reversal.

🤔 What happens before expiration?

The amount of time remaining and whether earnings fall before or after the selected expiration can completely change the trade. A structure that makes sense before an event may be a poor fit when it has to carry the event risk.

🤔 What is the options market pricing?

Expected move, implied volatility relative to realized movement, put-call skew, and liquidity show how expensive the available exposure is and whether the option chain supports the intended structure.

🤔 What does the payoff need to accomplish?

The position may need continued direction, a limited move, time decay, volatility expansion, mean reversion, or protection against a tail event. “Bullish” and “bearish” are not precise enough to answer this question.

These five questions are connected, but one input can change several of the answers at once: the expiration date.

Expiration Changes More Than Time

An expiration date is often treated as something selected after the strategy. In practice, it influences which strategies deserve consideration in the first place.

Take the same AAPL setup shown above and select a near-term expiration.

Options Playbook builds the analysis from the contracts available for that exact date. The daily chart receives more decision weight, the time remaining becomes part of the strategy filter, and the system checks whether earnings fall before or after expiration. Expected move, implied volatility, skew, liquidity, and available strikes are all calculated from that specific option surface.

Now select a later expiration.

The underlying and its current chart have not changed, but the options trade has. The expected move covers a longer period, the volatility surface is different, earnings may now sit inside the trade, and the weekly chart becomes more important. Some strategies become more natural for the new horizon, while others are deprioritized or removed from consideration.

Options Playbook does not take the first result and stretch it across the calendar. Each ticker + expiration combination produces a separate analysis.

That is why the two AAPL screens can show different rankings without contradicting each other. They are answering different questions.

What Options Playbook Calculates

Selecting an expiration starts a new preparation process rather than a simple DTE adjustment. The analysis is organized around five groups of evidence.

Market structure

The product reads up to 120 completed daily bars and up to 100 weekly bars. It evaluates trend, momentum, RSI extension, the recent price path, and any prepared technical signals. Shorter expirations place more weight on daily structure, while longer horizons gradually shift the main thesis toward the weekly chart.

Time and event fit

The selected expiration is assigned to a time horizon, and every strategy has its own policy for that horizon. Earnings timing is evaluated separately, so an event occurring before expiration becomes part of the analysis rather than a generic warning attached to every result.

Volatility pricing

Options Playbook calculates the expected move for the selected expiration, at-the-money implied volatility, recent realized volatility, and the relationship between them. It also measures the difference between put and call volatility around the 25-delta area to understand how directional risk is being priced.

Option-chain quality

The system checks quote coverage, bid/ask spreads, open interest, daily volume, available strikes, and whether implied volatility and Greeks can be calculated across enough of the chain. A theoretically attractive strategy should not rank well if the required contracts are impractical or the market data is incomplete.

Payoff precision

The final question is not simply whether a strategy is bullish, bearish, or neutral. The system compares the actual payoff logic: bounded direction, premium income, target zone, range, convex movement, mean reversion, protection, or another form of exposure. It also compares each selected strategy with its nearest alternative to determine which one expresses the prepared setup more precisely.

👉 Once these five evidence groups are prepared, a high-capability AI model performs the final comparison. It is not given an open-ended request to suggest “the best strategy.” It receives the calculated facts for one ticker and expiration, a fixed strategy catalog, and a strict scoring contract. The model must evaluate all 38 strategies, support every part of the Fit score with available evidence, and return exactly five results.

I deliberately chose a top-tier model for this stage rather than a cheaper lightweight model. That makes each analysis more expensive to run, but this is the part of the product where small differences in timing, volatility, and payoff structure need to be understood correctly.

The output is validated before it reaches the screen. If the model selects an unavailable strategy, cites unsupported evidence, or breaks the required response contract, the result is rejected rather than shown as a confident answer. This keeps the AI useful for interpretation without allowing it to wander beyond the market data and strategy rules built into Options Playbook.

From 38 Strategies to the Top Five

The final result contains five strategies ranked by their fit with the selected market setup and expiration.

Each Fit score is built from the five evidence groups described above, allowing the final ranking to reflect more than a simple directional opinion.

The score is not a probability of profit and should not be read as one. It is a comparative measure that shows why one structure fits the prepared conditions better than another.

Each strategy includes two short explanations. The first describes the market bet expressed by the payoff. The second explains why that payoff is more suitable than a nearby alternative.

The Fit panel opens the evidence behind the score, including the market, timing, volatility, and chain facts used for that particular result. This makes it possible to see whether a strategy ranked well because of the trend, the expected move, relative volatility pricing, event timing, liquidity, or the shape of its payoff.

The strategy name then opens the corresponding structure in OptionStrat, where the position can be inspected and adjusted further.

Where Options Playbook Fits in the Workflow

Options Playbook does not replace TC2000, TradingView, or another charting platform. Those tools remain better suited to scanning the market and doing detailed technical work.

It also does not replace OptionStrat. Once a strategy has been selected, OptionStrat remains a useful environment for adjusting strikes and studying the payoff.

Options Playbook fills the space between them.

The charting platform helps identify the underlying. Options Playbook compares the structures that fit the underlying’s current market context and selected expiration. OptionStrat then provides the next layer of position modeling.

That missing handoff was the reason the product was built.

When I first wrote about the idea in June, its working name was Options Decision OS. The planned strategy universe was smaller, and much of the product still existed as a scoring concept rather than a complete workflow. The public product is now called Options Playbook, and its first complete version is live at options.10delta.io.

Try Options Playbook

You can select an underlying, review its daily and weekly context, choose any available expiration, and see how the strategy ranking changes.

Market context is available before analysis. A free account includes three complete strategy analyses, with one new complimentary analysis available per market day. Membership provides ongoing access across the available tickers and expirations.

This article introduces the complete workflow, but each part deserves a closer look. Future posts will cover expiration selection, expected move, implied versus realized volatility, options skew, liquidity, earnings, and the reasons two expirations on the same underlying can lead to very different strategies.

The objective is not to remove judgment from options trading. It is to make the first strategy decision more structured and easier to examine.

Always yours,
— Mansur

Disclaimer

All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Any trades or strategies should be tested in a simulated environment before use. Trading involves risk, and all decisions are the sole responsibility of the reader.

The position was not built on a market collapse.

It was built on a slowdown.

After a strong advance from the April lows, IWM had reached the upper end of its recent range with price extended above the main moving averages and short-term momentum already stretched.

The broader trend remained intact, but the move was no longer early.

That distinction mattered.

The trade did not require IWM to reverse sharply. It only needed the ETF to stop advancing efficiently, spend time consolidating, or pull back from its recent highs.

Over the following weeks, that is exactly what developed.

Price struggled to produce sustained upside follow-through above the $300 area. The daily chart shifted from persistent expansion into a slower, more rotational structure.

Momentum weakened without turning into a disorderly selloff.

RSI cooled as the upside extension faded, while the daily MACD histogram moved below zero and confirmed a loss of short-term momentum.

The turning point was not a dramatic decline.

It was the absence of another sustained move higher.

As IWM remained below the call structure, time decay continued working in favor of the position. The 314 and 315 strikes were never placed under meaningful pressure during the final stage of the trade.

By expiration on July 24, IWM remained comfortably below the entire risk zone.

All three call legs expired out of the money.

Full premium captured.

Trade Recap

Structure: Call Broken Wing Butterfly
Entry Date: June 24, 2026
Expiration: July 24, 2026
Contracts: 4

Long Call: 314C
Short Calls: 315C
Upper Long Call: 330C

Credit Received: $518
Net P/L After Broker Fees: +$513

👉 View on OptionStrat
👉 View in Trade Log

Post-mortem

The structure stayed fully out of the money through expiration, allowing time decay to complete the trade.

→ The risk zone remained untouched
→ All call legs expired worthless
→ The full premium was captured

The result: $513 net profit after broker commissions and a 100% return.

Disclaimer  

All content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.Any trades or strategies should be tested in a simulated environment before use.Trading involves risk, and all decisions are the sole responsibility of the reader.

The daily chart shows a clean rebound, improving momentum, and price holding above the key short-term moving averages. But after that fast move higher, the setup is no longer early. AAPL is now closer to resistance than support, with RSI back near the upper part of its recent range.

That creates a practical setup for a Call Broken Wing Butterfly options trade.

The idea is not that Apple needs to collapse. The thesis is simpler: after a strong rebound into the low $300s, AAPL may begin to slow down, consolidate, or trade with less upside momentum over the next few weeks.

How the Trade Was Selected

AAPL came through Options Strategist, my Telegram terminal, as part of the Call Broken Wing Butterfly scan.

The ranking screen highlighted AAPL with an RSI reading near 60, which made it a useful candidate for a defined-risk options income setup. It was not the most extended name on the list, but it had the right combination of strength, rebound momentum, and location after a fast move off the lows.

That is the type of setup I want to see for a Call Broken Wing Butterfly.

The chart then confirmed the same basic idea. AAPL has regained momentum, pushed back above the moving averages, and is trading near the top of the recent price structure. The move is strong, but it is also mature enough to justify selling premium above the market rather than chasing the stock higher.

Options Strategist then converted that market condition into a structure: a 330/335/360 Call Broken Wing Butterfly expiring on August 7, 2026.

The selected configuration placed the short call spread well above the current stock price, kept the risk fully defined, and opened the trade for a net credit.

That combination matched the setup I was looking for.

Read more