Verso · the second exercise
NVDA Thesis
The odds, written down before the outcome is known. Second time.
The first exercise closed on its eleventh day at +59%, on a ten per cent move in the stock, without the strike ever being reached. This is the second, in a different name, struck much closer and sized much larger. The thesis is the operator's own sentence and is kept verbatim: “Nvidia always seems to rip.” The stock rose 5.9% in the thirty days to 21 September 2026.
Previous trends are not indicators of future results, and that is said first, again. What makes this a record rather than a story is that the odds and the size are on this page before the outcome is.
The position
- Instrument
- Call option
- Expiry
- 2026-10-23
- Days held
- 32
- Strike
- +1.7% OTM
- Premium
- $700.00
- Max loss
- The premium
- Break-even
- +4.8%
- Implied vol
- 31%
- Share of account
- 95%
- Earnings
- 17 Nov — after expiry
What has to happen
A cheap stock is not a cheap option. The HOOD contract cost $395 on a $115 stock at 64% implied volatility; this one costs $700 on a $226 stock at 31%. Volatility cancels the share price — a near-the-money call runs about the same money either way. What the lower volatility buys is a shorter distance: break-even is +4.8% by 23 October, against +17.0% last time, and the dead zone between the market and the strike is 1.7% wide instead of 13.5%.
| Underlying | Move | Contract | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| flat | 0.0% | −$700 | −100% |
| at the strike | +1.7% | −$700 | −100% |
| break-even | +4.8% | $0 | 0% |
| — | +7.0% | +$501 | +72% |
| — | +10.0% | +$1,180 | +169% |
| — | +15.0% | +$2,311 | +330% |
Moves are from $226.18, where the stock traded when the chain was read. The rows are what the contract is worth at expiry; the first exercise never got there, and this one may not either. It reports on 17 November, after this contract is gone, so there is no earnings print inside it — this is a bet on a 31-volatility name drifting five per cent in a month, nothing more exotic.
Why the size is the decision
Ninety-five per cent of the account is in this one premium. The plan written before the trade said no more than half; the operator overrode it and said so in the same breath — “I’m good using the balance.” That sentence is kept here because the size, not the strike, is the decision that will be judged, and a page that only records the odds it likes is a story.
The premium is still an education expense that may also pay. It is not a recommendation, not a signal, and not evidence of an edge — the two findings on this site say the opposite, and one closed trade does not change them.
Placed and filled at $7.00. One contract, $700.00 all in, sent through the agent at 12:46 ET with a $7.10 limit; the ask had slipped ten cents in the time it took to review, and it filled there, in two tenths of a second. At the fill: delta 0.46, theta −$14 a day, implied volatility 31%, break-even $237.00. The broker’s probability of any profit at expiry: 30%.
By the close of the same session the contract marked $7.63. That is a mark, not an outcome. Outcome recorded here either way.
Sold to close at $8.55. Held one of the thirty-two days. Realised +$155 on $700.04, +22.1%.
The strike was never reached. NVIDIA read $229.49 moments after the fill — fifty-one cents below the $230 strike — so every cent of the $855 was time value, exactly as with HOOD. The stock moved about 1.4% from the $226.18 of the chain read; the contract moved 22%. That ratio is the whole reason to own the option rather than the shares, and it works in both directions.
The exit was walked down, and that is now twice. A sell limit rested at $8.75 (+25%) and did not fill; it was lowered to $8.55 and filled immediately. The pattern across all three exits on this account is the same: a target is set, the market declines to pay it, and the print is taken rather than the number. Recorded because it is a method, not an accident.
The 30% odds written down above were for expiry, on 23 October. They were never tested — the position was closed thirty-one days early. A perpetual-futures position on the same name, run alongside with a take-profit at $231.51, did not trigger on the same move. The option and the perp were one bet with two payouts, never a hedge.
A third exercise — the first chosen by a screen rather than a sentence — is written down here.