Week of Sep 21–Sep 27, 2026
Monday sat empty, no trade placed. The four days after it, Tuesday through Friday, ran eight separate same-day SPX credit spreads, every one of them expiring worthless for a real $487.48. The dollar total is the least interesting part of this week. What actually changed is process: using the buying power the open /ESZ6 strangle wasn’t using, and building what used to go on as a single iron condor as two separately-timed spreads instead.
Week net, realized
+$487.48
Eight SPX 0DTE spreads across four trading days, all expired worthless, 8 for 8
Wed Sep 24
Two entries, same strikes
1-lot 7735/7755 call spreads, about 11 minutes apart, +$56.56 and +$61.56
The four trading days
| Date | Trade | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Mon Sep 21 | No trade | Nothing on |
| Tue Sep 22 | SPX 7710/7730 put credit spread, 1 lot, 0.55 credit | Expired worthless. +$51.56 |
| Wed Sep 23 | Three separate 1-lot spreads: 7675/7655 put (0.75 credit), 7665/7645 put (0.70 credit), 7770/7790 call (0.60 credit) | All expired worthless. +$71.56, +$66.56, +$56.56, combined +$194.68 |
| Thu Sep 24 | Two separate 1-lot call spreads, both 7735/7755, entered ~11 minutes apart (0.60 credit, then 0.65 credit) | Both expired worthless. +$56.56 and +$61.56, combined +$118.12 |
| Fri Sep 25 | Put spread 7640/7620 (0.70 credit) and call spread 7755/7775 (0.60 credit) | Both expired worthless. +$66.56 and +$56.56, combined +$123.12 |
Every single position this week closed the same way: sold for a credit, left alone, expired worthless. No stops, no rolls, no early exits to manage. The only real variety in the week was in how many separate spreads went on any given day, not in how any of them turned out.
Working the strangle’s buying power harder
The real change this week was deliberate. The account is currently carrying a 3-lot /ESZ6 strangle opened the week before, and rather than let the buying power that position wasn’t using sit idle, this week leaned on it to run more same-day SPX size: more separate spreads across more of the week than a typical stretch of this record shows. The idea is straightforward. If the strangle isn’t using all the buying power reserved against it, putting some of that capacity to work in same-day SPX credit spreads makes the core /ES position relatively more relaxed by comparison, since the account isn’t leaning on that position alone to do all the work.
That framing has a real limit, and it’s worth stating as plainly as the idea itself: the same leverage that makes this possible cuts both ways. If the SPX side runs into a genuinely bad week at the same time the strangle needs room to move, the two aren’t independent risks anymore; they’re drawing on the same pool of buying power at the same time. Eight winners in a row this week doesn’t change that math. It just means the math wasn’t tested this particular week.
Building an iron condor in two stages instead of one
The second real change is how Wednesday and Friday actually got built. Instead of opening a full iron condor, put side and call side, as one combined order the way this account has typically done it, both sides went on separately this week: one side first, a read on how the session was actually moving, then the other side later if it still looked right. Wednesday’s two call spreads at the same 7735/7755 strikes are one version of that, a second same-side entry rather than a single larger one; Friday’s put spread followed by a separate call spread later the same day is the cleaner example of the actual two-stage condor idea.
The practical detail that makes this worth doing at all: it takes the same buying power whether one side goes on, the other, or both at the same size. Splitting the entry doesn’t cost anything in capital efficiency, it just means each side gets its own read on the day instead of being locked into whatever the market looked like at the moment a single combined order went in. This is a real process change worth repeating, not a one-time experiment; the plan is to keep building condors this way rather than reverting to the single-order version.
Takeaway
$487.48, eight winners, nothing broken and nothing rolled. The dollar total is a clean week like several others on this record. What actually matters here is underneath it: a real, named tradeoff (using strangle buying power to run more SPX size, cutting both ways) and a real process change (condors built in two stages instead of one) that this account intends to keep using, not just a one-week curiosity. Both are on the record now, before either one has been tested by a bad week, which is the honest point of writing it down here rather than only after something goes wrong.
Frequently asked questions
How did this account do the week of September 21, 2026?
Up $487.48 in realized trading. Monday had no trade at all; Tuesday through Friday ran eight separate same-day SPX credit spreads across four trading days, every one of them expiring worthless. No losses this week.
Why did Wednesday have two separate call spreads at the same strikes?
Both were 1-lot 7735/7755 call spreads, entered about 11 minutes apart at slightly different credits (0.60, then 0.65), not one order split into two fills. It was a deliberate second entry at the same strikes rather than a single larger position, part of the same working-the-buying-power approach covered below.
What changed about how this account builds an iron condor?
Instead of opening the put side and call side of a condor in one combined order, this account opened them separately this week, at different times, based on how the market was actually moving that session. It takes the same buying power whether one side, the other, or both go on at the same size, so splitting the entry costs nothing in capital efficiency; it just means each side gets priced and timed on its own read of the day rather than locked into a single combined order.
Is using the /ES strangle's buying power to run more 0DTE size a one-way bet?
No, and that's worth being direct about. The idea this week was that buying power freed up by the open /ESZ6 strangle could support running more same-day SPX size, making the core strangle position more relaxed by comparison. The same leverage that makes that possible can work against the account just as easily if the SPX side goes wrong at the same time the strangle needs room. This week happened to go 8 for 8; that outcome doesn't retroactively make the approach risk-free.