Stay Cold Under Pressure
Options trading execution means planning when it is calm, following the plan under pressure, and protecting the win instead of chasing more.
I traded the same company around earnings twice in a row. The first time I expressed a bearish bias with puts. The second time I expressed a bullish bias with calls. Both delivered triple-digit returns in a couple of days. That outcome was never guaranteed but it happened because I stayed inside my rules.
As I explained in “What Sandals & Spreads Is Really About”, this article is not about bragging. It is about sharing real trades where I followed the rules and let the outcome speak for itself. Sometimes the reward is money. Sometimes the reward is a new rule that makes the next win more likely.
This is a public journal, not personalized advice.
Quick facts:
2 event trades closed within 48 hours
First setup: 45/40 put spread, +125% in two sessions
Second setup: 45/50 call spread, +240% in two sessions
Subscribe for free if you want the next posts and the rules as they evolve.
Why I prefer under-the-radar tickers for earnings options trades
I avoid superstar tickers where the noise never stops. On community websites, you read one comment and ten new ones have already replaced it. The narrative shifts every hour, and it becomes easy to mistake chatter for information.
I prefer under-the-radar names where I can focus on two things. I want to understand the business in plain language, and I want to read price behavior without getting dragged into a daily war of headlines, rumors, and hot takes.
I think about these tickers the way a submarine crew thinks about a mission. They plan in calm water, they follow procedures under pressure, and they do not redesign the plan while the ship shakes.
I plan when I am calm, often on weekends when markets are closed. I enter only when the market respects the rules written in my plan. I usually exit when the market gets loud and pays attention, because that is when prices can become generous.
That mindset also explains why I keep my structures simple. If you read “The Simpler the Setup, the Cleaner the Execution”, you already know I prefer spreads because they define risk and make execution straightforward.
What Stayed Consistent Even When the Direction Changed
Both trades were earnings event trades, and I treated them as event trades from the start. I focused on what the market would pay for the story and the guidance, not only for the headline numbers. In this market, guidance and tone often matter more than reported figures, and price can react in ways that look irrational if you only read the EPS line.
October trade: I went in with a bearish bias. The chart looked weak. Tone risk felt real. I built a 45/40 put spread for about $1.20. Defined risk, clear payoff if the market reacted badly. I sold at $2.70 when it paid.
February trade: I went in with a bullish bias. The setup looked different. The stock felt positioned to move up. I did not copy the bearish thesis just because it worked before. I rebuilt from scratch. I built a 45/50 call spread for about $1.40. I sold at $4.80 when it paid.
These two trades did not share a direction. They shared three things that mattered more than direction : clear bias before entry, structure that defined risk, and treating the exit as a risk decision not as a contest where I tried to sell the absolute top.
The second trade is where the lesson showed up.
The Night Before Earnings, My Level Broke and I Did Not Improvise
The day before the earnings catalyst, the spread turned red and printed about minus 30% late in the session. This is where people sabotage themselves, because fear pushes them to improvise.
Here is the nuance I want to be honest about. My technical invalidation level was hit. I did not ignore that out of hope. I followed the plan I had already written for an earnings event trade, and that plan included one uncomfortable truth: pre-event price action can get ugly, and earnings can still reverse the move when the catalyst hits.
I separated technical levels from event management. I sized the trade so that I could live with earnings-week noise, and I defined risk through the structure from the start. Once I made that decision, I refused to renegotiate it under pressure.
Then the move arrived, and the exit became the real test.
I could have chased the last dollar. I chose to protect the win. I intentionally left about 5% to 10% on the table because I did not want to risk turning a +240% outcome into a much smaller win, or worse, because the market decided to sell the news at the open.
I didn’t chase the last dollar. I protected the win.
This is not about bragging. It is about showing what disciplined exits look like when the money is already on the table.
Why it was earned: I entered with a bias I could explain. I used a structure that forced defined risk. I protected the win instead of feeding my ego.
Rule: I decide when I am calm, and I execute when the market gets loud.
Checklist
· I can state a clear bias in one sentence before entry.
· I define risk with a structure before I place the order.
· I write the event plan, including what noise I accept and what breaks the idea.
· I decide in advance how I take profit if the market pays me fast.
· I protect the win instead of trying to sell the perfect top.
What I’d change next time: I will write one sentence before entry that explains exactly how a technical invalidation interacts with an earnings event plan, so I never hesitate in the heat of the moment.
Next step
If you are new here, Start Here.
If you want the full rule behind “no bias, no trade” and why I keep structures simple, read my previous article “The Simpler the Setup, the Cleaner the Execution”.
Subscribe for free if you want the next posts and the rules as they evolve.