The Test Bench › option_strategy
Does Big Lizard actually work?
WINNERBeat its benchmark on the honest footing.
The claim
The big lizard sells fat ATM premium with no upside risk — TastyTrade / premium sellers
What we did
Tested against Expectancy net of REAL bid/ask — patient mid vs. crossing the spread, 2014–2025, real EOD bid/ask, manage 50%/21DTE.
The result
Result: 107.0 expectancy $/trade (crossing the spread)
mid +146 → cross +107/trade, keeps 73% of edge, 74% win, worst -6929
The numbers
| Worst drawdown | -14659.3% |
|---|
Verdict
Real edge that survives real fills: +107/trade crossing the spread (keeps 73% of the +146 mid-price number their studies quote), 74% win. Undefined-risk: keeps its edge through the spread, but you carry the naked tail. But the win rate hides the tail — worst trade -6929 on a 1-lot.
What the test did and did not do
- net of real costs
- point-in-time data
- checked for look-ahead
- tested out of sample
Almost nobody publishing a backtest says which of these they did. We list the ones we failed as well as the ones we passed.
Tested 2026-06-23. The same treatment, applied to every other system, is on the test bench.
Written with AI assistance from our own test database. The numbers are computed, not composed.
General market commentary for education, not personalised investment advice. Backtested results are hypothetical. Trading carries a real risk of loss.