IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
stock NYSE ETF

Interesting split. The caveat about inferred dealer positioning is the key one. Have you stress-tested net GEX and the flip levels under alternative positioning conventions? OI identifies open contracts, but not who owns which side, so a central estimate with sensitivity bands would be more useful than one exact flip.
How are you moving the volatility surface when solving for the flip: sticky strike, sticky delta, or a refitted smile at each spot? Holding each contract’s IV fixed while moving spot can materially shift the flip, particularly post-OpEx when near-dated gamma dominates.
Are these deliberately ETF-chain calculations, or do you incorporate SPX/NDX/RUT and futures options? Without those, I’d interpret the figures as SPY/QQQ/IWM option exposure rather than total dealer gamma for the underlying indexes.
The clean validation target seems non-directional: whether subsequent realized variance and short-horizon return persistence change with net gamma and distance from the flip, tested out of sample.
Are you planning to publish that validation as the history grows?

I had a good week! Traded in and out of qqq. I lost money on IWM the other day though. I guess that was yesterday.

YTD Performance:

📈S&P: +8.27%
📈Nasdaq: +7.46%
📈Dow: +8.06%
📈Small Caps: +18.67%
🥇Gold: -6.20%
🛢️Oil: +56.43%
💵US Dollar: +3.25%
₿ Bitcoin: -26.26%

\#YTDPerformance $SPY $QQQ $DIA $SPX #GOLD $GLD #Bitcoin $BTCUSD $IWM $RUT $USD

*Looking for feedback on this analysis:*
Something had been bugging me: my higher-conviction swing setups were resolving worse lately, and it was happening even in favorable regimes. Trend up, breadth okay, and still my hit rate slipped. Bull versus bear regime was not explaining it. So I went looking for a second axis, and the one that fit was day-to-day choppiness: the tape grinding sideways with no follow-through. A raging bull can still be a choppy grind, and that is a different animal than a downtrend.
The gauge is dumb-simple: count how many times an index flips daily direction over the last 10 sessions (0 to 3 is calm, 4 to 5 is a grind, 6 or more is choppy). The effect was real. My top-scored NYSE setups beat the market about 65% of the time on calm tape versus about 51% otherwise. Calm is not the same as an uptrend: you can be in a perfectly good regime and still be in a grind that quietly wrecks your win rate. That was my "even in a good regime" slump.
Here is the catch, and where I spent most of the time: the filter only works if you measure chop on the right index, and it is not the obvious "home" exchange index. So I tested it properly. Hold the trades and outcomes completely fixed and only swap which index labels each day calm versus choppy: that isolates the ruler from the stocks. I ran nine candidates (SPY, QQQ, DIA, IWM, MDY, VTI, RSP, and the NYSE and NASDAQ composites) and made each clear three bars: effect (do calm days actually beat non-calm days, judged with a t-test and not just a point estimate), stability (split the timeline 60/40 in chronological order and confirm the first 60% edge survives on the last 40%), and practicality (liquid and tradeable).
Here is what the nine rulers looked like. The edge column is how far calm days beat non-calm days in percentage points, the middle column is that same edge measured on each half of the timeline, and p is the t-test significance.
https://preview.redd.it/f55jtwo3a8fh1.png?width=584&format=png&auto=webp&s=d5868f4087db45dabd0bd12fc9971a36b20d8bbf

The out-of-sample split did most of the work. For NYSE names several large-cap clocks passed cleanly, so I took SPY as the liquid standard. For NASDAQ names, QQQ won for one reason: its edge barely moved between the two halves (+6.5 then +6.8), while the bigger headline numbers were mirages. The NYSE Composite swung from +4 to +12 and the Dow lurched from -1 to +19. QQQ was not the biggest number. It was the repeatable one. DIA actually topped the full-window list for both markets, then fell apart out of sample: 30 price-weighted names is narrow enough that its "chop" is really one or two stocks moving. The split is the only thing that caught it.
So the rule I landed on is simple: clock NYSE-listed setups on SPY, NASDAQ-listed setups on QQQ. In hindsight my slump lined up with stretches where SPY sat in the grind zone. The trend was fine. The tape was not. SPY and NYSE Comp were performing virtually the same. I picked SPY as I already had it available in my datasets.
A few caveats, because this is the internet. This is one window and mostly a bull market. Calm tape is rare, about one day in five. The edge is calm beating non-calm by a handful of points, not an on/off switch. And the NASDAQ side is genuinely weaker and more weighting-sensitive than the NYSE side. This is not advice, just a regime-filter experiment.
The lesson I would actually stand behind: chop is a real second axis beyond trend, and if you regime-filter, test your ruler instead of assuming it. Curious what the rest of you clock market regime with.
I am looking for input from the experts out there if you have looked into this or something similar? Where should I adjust my analysis?
Thanks for the input.

Haha ok, did you lose all your money yet on this puts? IWM has rebounded

I think RKT might be better for CSPs, but I run the PMCC on ETFs (SPY, IWM, QQQ) and bigger companies like AMZN and NVIDIA that have more stability, especially since it involves leverage

I cant with this fraud man... I bought a 1% OTM put around 9:37. IWM has since moved .5% down from where I bought and now my put is worth less than when I bought it 25 mins ago up .5%. This entire market runs on just gaslighting everyone that puts arent printing when they should be and stealing that option premium to fake pump.

Interesting split. The caveat about inferred dealer positioning is the key one. Have you stress-tested net GEX and the flip levels under alternative positioning conventions? OI identifies open contracts, but not who owns which side, so a central estimate with sensitivity bands would be more useful than one exact flip.
How are you moving the volatility surface when solving for the flip: sticky strike, sticky delta, or a refitted smile at each spot? Holding each contract’s IV fixed while moving spot can materially shift the flip, particularly post-OpEx when near-dated gamma dominates.
Are these deliberately ETF-chain calculations, or do you incorporate SPX/NDX/RUT and futures options? Without those, I’d interpret the figures as SPY/QQQ/IWM option exposure rather than total dealer gamma for the underlying indexes.
The clean validation target seems non-directional: whether subsequent realized variance and short-horizon return persistence change with net gamma and distance from the flip, tested out of sample.
Are you planning to publish that validation as the history grows?

I had a good week! Traded in and out of qqq. I lost money on IWM the other day though. I guess that was yesterday.

YTD Performance:

📈S&P: +8.27%
📈Nasdaq: +7.46%
📈Dow: +8.06%
📈Small Caps: +18.67%
🥇Gold: -6.20%
🛢️Oil: +56.43%
💵US Dollar: +3.25%
₿ Bitcoin: -26.26%

\#YTDPerformance $SPY $QQQ $DIA $SPX #GOLD $GLD #Bitcoin $BTCUSD $IWM $RUT $USD

*Looking for feedback on this analysis:*
Something had been bugging me: my higher-conviction swing setups were resolving worse lately, and it was happening even in favorable regimes. Trend up, breadth okay, and still my hit rate slipped. Bull versus bear regime was not explaining it. So I went looking for a second axis, and the one that fit was day-to-day choppiness: the tape grinding sideways with no follow-through. A raging bull can still be a choppy grind, and that is a different animal than a downtrend.
The gauge is dumb-simple: count how many times an index flips daily direction over the last 10 sessions (0 to 3 is calm, 4 to 5 is a grind, 6 or more is choppy). The effect was real. My top-scored NYSE setups beat the market about 65% of the time on calm tape versus about 51% otherwise. Calm is not the same as an uptrend: you can be in a perfectly good regime and still be in a grind that quietly wrecks your win rate. That was my "even in a good regime" slump.
Here is the catch, and where I spent most of the time: the filter only works if you measure chop on the right index, and it is not the obvious "home" exchange index. So I tested it properly. Hold the trades and outcomes completely fixed and only swap which index labels each day calm versus choppy: that isolates the ruler from the stocks. I ran nine candidates (SPY, QQQ, DIA, IWM, MDY, VTI, RSP, and the NYSE and NASDAQ composites) and made each clear three bars: effect (do calm days actually beat non-calm days, judged with a t-test and not just a point estimate), stability (split the timeline 60/40 in chronological order and confirm the first 60% edge survives on the last 40%), and practicality (liquid and tradeable).
Here is what the nine rulers looked like. The edge column is how far calm days beat non-calm days in percentage points, the middle column is that same edge measured on each half of the timeline, and p is the t-test significance.
https://preview.redd.it/f55jtwo3a8fh1.png?width=584&format=png&auto=webp&s=d5868f4087db45dabd0bd12fc9971a36b20d8bbf

The out-of-sample split did most of the work. For NYSE names several large-cap clocks passed cleanly, so I took SPY as the liquid standard. For NASDAQ names, QQQ won for one reason: its edge barely moved between the two halves (+6.5 then +6.8), while the bigger headline numbers were mirages. The NYSE Composite swung from +4 to +12 and the Dow lurched from -1 to +19. QQQ was not the biggest number. It was the repeatable one. DIA actually topped the full-window list for both markets, then fell apart out of sample: 30 price-weighted names is narrow enough that its "chop" is really one or two stocks moving. The split is the only thing that caught it.
So the rule I landed on is simple: clock NYSE-listed setups on SPY, NASDAQ-listed setups on QQQ. In hindsight my slump lined up with stretches where SPY sat in the grind zone. The trend was fine. The tape was not. SPY and NYSE Comp were performing virtually the same. I picked SPY as I already had it available in my datasets.
A few caveats, because this is the internet. This is one window and mostly a bull market. Calm tape is rare, about one day in five. The edge is calm beating non-calm by a handful of points, not an on/off switch. And the NASDAQ side is genuinely weaker and more weighting-sensitive than the NYSE side. This is not advice, just a regime-filter experiment.
The lesson I would actually stand behind: chop is a real second axis beyond trend, and if you regime-filter, test your ruler instead of assuming it. Curious what the rest of you clock market regime with.
I am looking for input from the experts out there if you have looked into this or something similar? Where should I adjust my analysis?
Thanks for the input.

Haha ok, did you lose all your money yet on this puts? IWM has rebounded

I think RKT might be better for CSPs, but I run the PMCC on ETFs (SPY, IWM, QQQ) and bigger companies like AMZN and NVIDIA that have more stability, especially since it involves leverage

I cant with this fraud man... I bought a 1% OTM put around 9:37. IWM has since moved .5% down from where I bought and now my put is worth less than when I bought it 25 mins ago up .5%. This entire market runs on just gaslighting everyone that puts arent printing when they should be and stealing that option premium to fake pump.

You totally can! I have an experimental account funded with 25k and I do a series of "poor man's" covered option debit spreads on a collection of seven shorts and longs at any given time. It took me about a year to get the hang of how to do it right, but I feel good about it now.
The secret of trading poor man's puts or calls is to disregard the long-term time frame of the long part, the LEAPs. I researched this extensively and concluded there is very little benefit from calendarizing a long position. That requires vastly more capital and doesn't deliver much risk reward benefit in return. You can do quite well having your long the same exp date as the short.
Example, you wanna short TSLA? Sell to open a 320 put and buy a 330 put, both of them Aug 21 exp. You get around 10 short delta of it that way and your theta is still above zero, so you don't have time decay. Gamma risk at that 54/44 spread is almost zero. That position made me some change today.
On the other side, you have to go long to hedge that, so sell a call debit spread on something with low or neg correlation. I use IWM currently, a pair of Aug 21 with 305 short and 295 long calls.
The fact that you realized you've realized you can't win just selling long puts and calls is a good sign. I went for years trying to do that, even thought puts on GME fer flip sake. This is a better way.

I started doing 0DTE options (SPY, QQQ, IWM) for a couple weeks with a good degree of success. Losing days were related to psychological self-control. I do not like to risk more than 3% of my account on each trade, so I make appropriate position sizing. BUT there were a few times I doubled down on losing positions instead of cutting it off.
One particular incident today I was scalping IWM puts, I kept doubling down buying more puts until 30% of my account was exposed, which means even at least 15% of my account could have been wiped out. I was lucky the trade end up winning but it showed me my own discipline issue. I have been thinking how to better control this problem (i.e. physically locking away 90% of the money).
Any tool and suggestions from those who done similar?

IWM or credit spreads

come on IWM one more leg down

So equal weight RSP and small caps IWM both down much less than SPY. Sure doesn’t feel very “risk off” to me.

IWM down less than SPY. All is good.