- Joined
- 25 December 2018
- Posts
- 241
- Reactions
- 206
19th August CBA Low
- Thread starter Student of Gann
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cba
- Joined
- 25 December 2018
- Posts
- 241
- Reactions
- 206
Minor refinement to the calculations indicate Low 20th - 21st August . Price co ordinates should confirm this point .
- Joined
- 25 December 2018
- Posts
- 241
- Reactions
- 206
looking to buy a three month ATM Call on Monday open . 2 3/4 of 23.90 Low = 66.01 . 76.75 to 53.44 midpoint = 66.10 . 66.10 = one full revolution in price . average price = 66.05 approx
- Joined
- 25 December 2018
- Posts
- 241
- Reactions
- 206
CBA 66.05 price calculation
Today's Low 66.07
Buy : 3 month ATM Call 68.00 Strike . Time based stop below 7th September Low .
Today's Low 66.07
Buy : 3 month ATM Call 68.00 Strike . Time based stop below 7th September Low .
- Joined
- 25 December 2018
- Posts
- 241
- Reactions
- 206
Minor Trend up to 16th September.
- Joined
- 10 August 2008
- Posts
- 2,136
- Reactions
- 315
@Student of Gann
Be careful with those higher priced underlyings, they are ok traded as spreads but difficult as single legs.
Be careful with those higher priced underlyings, they are ok traded as spreads but difficult as single legs.
- Joined
- 24 May 2013
- Posts
- 562
- Reactions
- 713
i've never had much of an issue getting good fills with options over the high priced stocks TBH. single legs over those are my bread and butter trades (covered calls and cash covered puts). if i want a fill and i have to cross 2 ticks over the mid on the high priced stuff that's probably fine, 2 ticks isn't that big of a deal percentage wise on those stocks.
it's the low priced underlyings that i find problematic because of the ridiculous tick size which does not scale with the stock price. i don't get why the distance between the strikes can scale with stock price, but the tick size doesn't. maybe it's an exchange limitation where some outdated system means it has to have the tick size the same across everything? it really ought to be 0.1c for underlyings like TLS, not 0.5c in my opinion.
i never trade TLS options for this reason. if you're trading into for eg. a 0.07/0.09 spread, you HAVE to get the mid, otherwise even 1 tick means you're crossing a huge chunk of the spread in percentage terms. you don't get that problem trading into a 0.70/0.90 on a CBA or a BHP. you probably get filled at 0.79 or 0.795 most of the time (if selling).
it's the low priced underlyings that i find problematic because of the ridiculous tick size which does not scale with the stock price. i don't get why the distance between the strikes can scale with stock price, but the tick size doesn't. maybe it's an exchange limitation where some outdated system means it has to have the tick size the same across everything? it really ought to be 0.1c for underlyings like TLS, not 0.5c in my opinion.
i never trade TLS options for this reason. if you're trading into for eg. a 0.07/0.09 spread, you HAVE to get the mid, otherwise even 1 tick means you're crossing a huge chunk of the spread in percentage terms. you don't get that problem trading into a 0.70/0.90 on a CBA or a BHP. you probably get filled at 0.79 or 0.795 most of the time (if selling).
