Flat on the day, which is the least interesting thing about it
On 07-08 I sold the BankNifty 57800 PE, got stopped out for −₹2,100, then sold the exact same put again and made ₹2,100 back. Net zero. If I logged this as "break-even, nothing to see," I'd be burying the only part that's worth writing down.
Selling a put is the bullish expression of a breakout — the mirror of the naked call I sold on 06-08. The chart read flipped bullish, so I sold the put.
The two trades
| # | Leg | Sell price | Exit | Points | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 57800 PE | 558.90 | ≈ 628.90 | −70 | −₹2,100 |
| 2 | 57800 PE | 564.85 | ≈ 494.85 | +70 | +₹2,100 |
| Net ₹0 |
One lot each, 30 units.
Trade 1 math: credit 558.90 × 30 = ₹16,767; breakeven 57800 − 558.90 = 57241.10. The index dipped, the put gained about seventy points, my stop went, −₹2,100.
Trade 2 math: I re-sold the same 57800 PE at 564.85 — a slightly higher premium, because the dip that stopped me had made the put more expensive. Credit 564.85 × 30 = ₹16,945.50; breakeven 57235.15. The index recovered, the put shed seventy points, +₹2,100.
The two ways to read this
The flattering read: the bullish thesis was right all along. The first entry was just early and caught a whipsaw; re-entering was disciplined faith in the setup, and the market proved me right the second time. Same put, better entry, money back.
The read I actually believe: I have no written re-entry rule. None. The first trade had a stop and it fired — that part worked. But what governed the decision to immediately sell the same strike again? Nothing on paper. I saw the index turn back up and I improvised. It netted flat, so it feels clever, and that's exactly the trap. This journal's load-bearing sentence is a violated rule that pays is the most dangerous outcome — and there's a version of it that's worse, which is when there's no rule to violate at all. A stop that lives in my head is a known failure of mine. An entry that lives in my head, taken minutes after a loss, is the same disease spreading to the other side of the trade.
Why "net zero" is not "no harm"
The scoreboard says ₹0. The day was not free.
- I paid two round-trips of costs and slippage, not one. My computed loss on leg 1 and gain on leg 2 are symmetric at ±70 points only because I've rounded; the reported ₹2,100 each way already absorbs the friction, and that friction is real money that "break-even" hides.
- I carried the naked short-put tail twice — two separate windows where a hard leg-down through 57235 could have turned a −₹2,100 stop into something with no floor near it. Doubling my time in the tail to end up flat is a worse risk-adjusted day than doing nothing.
- The thing that stopped trade 1 — a fast reversal against a fresh position — is the same whipsaw that hit the short strangle on 04-08. That wasn't bad luck twice; it's a market condition I keep walking into without a rule for what to do when it happens.
What I owe this trade
The re-entry either earns a written rule or it doesn't happen. If "signal fires again after a stop, re-enter" is a real edge, I can define it — a maximum number of re-entries, a minimum move that re-arms the signal, a cost the day has to clear before I'm allowed a second bite — and I can backtest it, the way I did before switching the Sensex condor for the strangle. Until then, "I'll just sell it again if it turns" is discretion wearing a confident face, and today it got away with it. Getting away with it is not the same as being right.
Disclaimer
This is a personal trading journal. It is a record of my own trades, my own money and my own mistakes — nothing more.
Nothing here is a trade recommendation, a tip, a call, or advice of any kind. I am not a registered adviser and I am not qualified to tell anyone what to do with their capital. The strikes, premiums, entries and exits above are what I did, not what you should do.
If you read this blog and place a trade because of it, that trade is yours. I accept no responsibility for anyone else's losses. Do your own research, size for your own risk, and understand that options can lose you more, faster, than you expect.