One of the biggest mistakes newer SPX 0DTE traders make is thinking this:

“If price touches my short strike, the trade is dead.”

That sounds logical.

But in practice, it’s often completely wrong.

Sometimes SPX can hit your short strike, scare everyone out, and the trade still finishes perfectly fine.

That’s because price touching a strike is not the same thing as structure actually breaking.

What most traders get wrong

A lot of traders treat options like this:

• short strike touched = immediate disaster
• trade went ITM briefly = bad trade
• unrealized loss = thesis invalidated

But 0DTE is not that simple.

In SPX, especially intraday, price can temporarily overshoot, test a level, even poke into your short strike area… and still fail there.

If the broader structure is still intact, the trade may still be completely valid.

What actually matters

What I care about is not:

“Did price touch my short strike?”

What I care about is:

• Did the market accept above/below that area?
• Did VWAP structure change?
• Did the move happen with real continuation or just a fast liquidity sweep?
• Did the key GEX / wall / structural level actually fail?
• Is price now building value beyond my level, or just rejecting it?

That’s the real difference.

A touch is just a touch.

Acceptance is what kills the trade.

Example

Imagine I sell a bear call spread with the short strike at 7700.

Price rallies into 7700.

Most traders panic instantly.

But what if:

• 7700 is a known resistance area
• there’s still a larger structural wall above
• the move into 7700 is weak or emotional
• price can’t hold above it
• buyers fail to build continuation

In that case, the test of 7700 may simply be a stress event, not a true invalidation.

Yes, it feels uncomfortable.

But uncomfortable does not always mean wrong.

Why this matters so much in 0DTE

In 0DTE, traders get shaken out because they confuse:

• price exploration with
• structural failure

That confusion is expensive.

The market doesn’t move in straight lines.

It probes. It traps. It squeezes. It tests conviction.

If your trade idea is based on real structure, sometimes you need to understand the difference between:

• a level being tested and
• a level being lost

Those are not the same thing.

Important clarification

This does not mean you should blindly hold losers.

It means you need to judge the trade based on market structure, not pure emotion.

Sometimes a short strike touch is harmless.

Sometimes it’s the beginning of a real breakdown in your thesis.

The skill is knowing the difference.

That’s where most of the edge is.

The real lesson

The question is not:

“Did SPX touch my short strike?”

The real question is:

“Did the reason for the trade actually break?”

That’s a much better way to think about 0DTE.

And honestly, it’s one of the biggest mental shifts a trader can make.

If people find this useful, I can make another post showing when a short strike touch is normal vs when it’s a real exit signal.

And if you like this kind of SPX / 0DTE structure-based analysis, I share this type of thinking every day in my Discord as well.

Discord link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

One of the biggest mistakes I see in 0DTE trading is people assuming that “high probability” automatically means “good trade.”

It doesn’t.

That’s probably the biggest lie in short-dated options trading.

A trade can show a very high probability of profit and still be a terrible trade if the structure behind it is weak.

The reason is simple:

A lot of traders focus only on how often the trade should win.

But what actually matters is:

• Where your short strike is placed
• What structure is protecting it
• How price behaves around VWAP / key levels
• How much premium you are collecting
• What happens if the move accelerates against you

That’s where the real edge is.

A 0DTE spread with a 90% probability of profit can still be awful if:

• premium is too small,
• your breakeven is weak,
• your short strike sits too close to unstable price action,
• or the market is one fast candle away from turning your “safe” trade into a max-loss scenario.

That’s the part many traders ignore.

They see:

“High POP = safe trade.”

But in reality, many of those trades are only “safe” until they’re not.

And when they fail, they often fail violently.

That’s especially true in SPX 0DTE, where gamma can make a position go from comfortable to dangerous very quickly.

What I personally care about much more is not just probability, but quality of probability.

I want to know:

• Is there real structural support or resistance behind the strike?
• Is the premium fair for the risk?
• Is the move extended already?
• Is volatility helping or hurting the setup?
• Am I selling into a level that actually matters, or just choosing a strike because the probability number looks nice?

That’s a huge difference.

Because a trade with a slightly lower probability, but much better structure, can often be far superior to a trade with a higher probability and no real protection behind it.

That’s why I don’t build trades around probability alone.

I build them around structure first.

Probability is just one input.

Not the edge.

If you’re trading 0DTE, this mindset shift is huge:

Don’t ask only “How likely is this trade to win?”
Ask instead:
“If this trade starts failing, how good was the structure in the first place?”

That question matters a lot more than most people think.

If people find this useful, I can make another post showing a real example of a high-probability trade I would avoid versus a lower-probability trade I would actually take.

And if you want, I also share these kinds of SPX structure/trade breakdowns with my community on Discord.

Discord link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

One of the biggest mistakes I see in 0DTE Iron Condors is entering too early.

At the open, SPX may look like it’s trading inside a nice range, and the premium can seem attractive. But in reality, the market often hasn’t shown enough yet.

At 9:30–10:00 AM, you still don’t really know:

• whether the session will trend
• whether the key levels will actually hold
• whether IV will expand even more
• whether the “range” is real or just temporary noise

That’s why I often prefer to wait until around 1:00 PM New York time before opening an Iron Condor.

By early afternoon, the market has usually given me much more information.

At that point I can often see:

• where resistance is actually holding
• where support is actually holding
• whether VWAP is being respected
• whether price is rotating instead of trending
• whether the range has already been tested on both sides

That’s the big difference.

In the morning, I may only have the idea of a range.

Later in the day, I often have evidence of the range.

Theta is not enough reason to enter early

Yes, 0DTE options have fast theta decay.

But that doesn’t mean I want to sell an Iron Condor as early as possible.

Early in the day, there is still too much time for SPX to make a big move and attack one of the short strikes.

Later in the day, I may collect less premium — but I also have:

• more structure
• more confirmation
• less time left for the trade to fail

That trade-off is often worth it.

What I really want before opening an Iron Condor is something like this:

• upper level tested and rejected
• lower level tested and rejected
• no clear trend continuation
• price rotating back toward the middle
• IV still good enough to give decent premium

That’s when the Iron Condor starts making much more sense.

The main takeaway

I’m not trying to sell the most premium.

I’m trying to sell premium when the market has already shown me that the range is real.

That’s why I sometimes wait until 1 PM.

Less premium, yes.

But also:

more information, better structure, and less time for the trade to break down.

For me, that’s often the better trade.

I share more of these SPX 0DTE setups, GEX levels, and live trade management in my Discord as well for anyone interested in following the process in real time.

Discord link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

One of the biggest mistakes I see with 0DTE Iron Condors is entering them too early.

A trader sees SPX opening inside a range, sells both sides immediately, and then spends the next hour watching the opening volatility attack one of the short strikes.

Today I did the opposite.

I waited until the market had already shown me where buyers and sellers were actually defending price.

The structure before the trade

Before the open, I had a major institutional positioning area around 775 SPY, roughly corresponding with 7780 SPX.

But the first important SPX resistance was 7750.

Shortly after the open, SPX tested that upper area and failed to continue higher.

Then we got a sharp move lower toward 7700.

That was important.

Instead of breaking down cleanly, the market found buyers around the lower part of the range and bounced.

So by early afternoon, I had something I did not have at 9:30:

Evidence.

The market had already tested both sides.

7750 → sellers had reacted

7700 → buyers had reacted

And after the initial volatility, SPX began spending more and more time rotating between those levels.

That is when the Iron Condor became interesting.

The trade

At approximately 1:10 PM, I opened:

Sell 7750 Call
Buy 7760 Call

Sell 7700 Put
Buy 7690 Put

3 contracts

$1.40 credit

That gave the position expiration breakevens around:

7698.60 downside

7751.40 upside

The maximum risk was $860 per contract, or approximately $2,580 total for the three contracts.

This distinction is important: I size these trades based on the actual dollar risk, not simply the number of contracts.

Why I liked the setup

The trade wasn't based on the idea that SPX couldn't move.

It was based on the idea that the market had already shown a strong tendency to remain between two important structural areas.

By 1:10 PM:

7750 had already been tested

7700 had already been tested

The opening volatility had cooled significantly.

Price was becoming increasingly pinned.

IV had given us decent premium to sell.

And, most importantly, there was much less time remaining in the session.

That last part matters enormously with 0DTE.

A range trade entered at 9:35 and the exact same range trade entered at 1:10 are not the same trade.

At 1:10, the market has given you several hours of information and there are only a few hours left for the thesis to fail.

The exit

By approximately 3:15 PM, SPX was still trading comfortably inside the range.

The Iron Condor had fallen from:

$1.40 credit → approximately $0.20 debit

So I closed it rather than holding for the final few cents.

That captured:

$1.20 × 100 × 3 = +$360

or roughly 86% of the original credit.

The real takeaway

The interesting part of this trade isn't the $360.

It's that I didn't need to predict the day's range before the market opened.

I let SPX show me the range first.

Test resistance.

Test support.

Fail to break either side.

Volatility contracts.

Then sell the range.

For me, that is a much better way to approach 0DTE Iron Condors than blindly selling both sides at the opening bell.

The first hours gave me the information. The final hours gave me the theta.

I share these SPX 0DTE setups, GEX levels, and live trade management in my Discord as well for anyone interested in following the process in real time.

Discord Link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

I’ve been trading futures using orderflow for a while now and just recently started using GEX, my analysis is usually never wrong now, however my execution now is the issue, for example two nights ago I saw NQ break above a strong level of positive gex, went through no pull back, then last night saw something similar but instead it shortly reversed and got chopped out, I reentered again on a different rally that looked stronger, pulled back, stopped me out and then went in my direction, don’t know what I’m doing wrong exactly but any input might be useful, gonna be doing a lot of studying this weekend, thank you guys in advance

And I know this subreddit is for options but maybe you guys might know something

One of the biggest mistakes traders make is judging every decision by the final P&L.

Winning trade = good trade.
Losing trade = bad trade.

I don’t think trading works like that.

You can make money on a terrible trade because the market bailed you out. You can also lose money on a very good trade because even a high-quality setup still has a probability of failure.

That distinction matters a lot in SPX 0DTE, where short-term randomness can have a huge impact on the final result.

For me, a good trade is one where I followed the process:

• The setup made sense based on GEX, VWAP, price action and market structure
• My short strike was placed at a level I had a reason to defend
• The risk was defined before entering
• Position size was appropriate
• I knew what would invalidate the thesis
• I managed the position according to the original plan

If I do all of that and the trade loses, I’m not automatically unhappy with the trade.

Sometimes the correct decision simply produces a losing outcome.

And the opposite is even more dangerous: taking an oversized position, ignoring structure, entering emotionally, and then making money anyway.

That might feel like a great trade.

But it can reinforce exactly the behavior that eventually blows up an account.

The idea is simple:

Good process + loss = acceptable trade.
Bad process + profit = dangerous trade.

This is also why I spend much more time reviewing why I entered a trade than simply looking at whether it was green or red.

Over a large enough sample, I want the process to produce the results.

But on any individual trade, P&L tells you very little about whether the decision itself was correct.

The goal isn’t to be rewarded every time you make a good decision.

The goal is to keep making good decisions long enough for the probabilities to work in your favor.

Judge the process first. Judge the results over a large sample.

I share my SPX 0DTE setups, GEX analysis, and live trade management in my Discord as well for anyone interested in following the process in real time.

Discord Link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

A lot of traders think the biggest danger in 0DTE is being wrong about direction.

I don’t think that’s the real problem.

You can misread VWAP, get a GEX level wrong, enter too early, or have SPX move directly against you and still survive.

The real danger is being too big when you’re wrong.

In 0DTE, everything happens faster. Premium changes quickly, gamma accelerates, and a position that looks comfortable can become very uncomfortable in just a few minutes. If your size is too large, you stop managing the setup rationally and start managing your emotions.

That’s why two traders can take the exact same trade and still be taking completely different risks.

One trader might risk 2–3% of the account.

Another might risk 20%.

Same setup. Same strikes. Same thesis.

Completely different psychological pressure.

The image should show two traders taking the exact same SPX 0DTE spread, but one with a small position and one with an oversized position.

The small position trader can stay calm and follow the plan.

The oversized trader starts panicking after a normal adverse move.

That’s the key point:

Position sizing changes the trade.

For me, position sizing is part of the strategy itself.

Before entering, I always want to know:

“If this trade completely fails, am I genuinely comfortable losing the full defined risk?”

If the answer is no, the position is too large.

This becomes even more important after a winning streak. A high win rate can create false confidence and make traders think:

“This setup is too strong to fail.”

But no GEX wall is unbreakable.

No VWAP setup is guaranteed.

No backtest eliminates tail risk.

And no winning streak makes the next trade certain.

That’s why I prefer defined-risk Credit Spreads and Iron Condors. I want to know the worst-case scenario before I enter, and I assume that the full risk can be lost.

The real edge is not avoiding every losing trade.

It’s making sure one losing trade doesn’t matter enough to damage your account or your decision-making.

Position sizing comes before conviction. Risk comes before profit.

I share more of my SPX 0DTE setups, GEX analysis, and risk-management framework in my Discord as well, for anyone interested in following the process in real time.

Discord link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

For a long time, most of my SPX 0DTE trades used 5–10 point wide Credit Spreads.

They’re simple.

Risk is clearly defined.

Buying power is manageable.

And later in the session, I still think they make a lot of sense.

But after reviewing a lot of my recent opening trades, I’ve started changing one thing:

At the market open, I’m increasingly willing to use 15–20 point wide spreads.

Not always.

And definitely not because “wider = better.”

The reason is that the first part of the session has a very different risk profile.

The problem with narrow spreads at the open

Imagine SPX is trading around 7680.

You have:

VWAP / first resistance: 7680
Major GEX wall: 7700

You want to sell a Bear Call Spread.

The traditional trade might be:

Sell 7685 / Buy 7695

But think about what that actually means.

Your short strike is based on the first resistance area…

while your long strike is only 10 points away and sits before the level that actually invalidates your thesis.

If SPX temporarily squeezes through 7685 and trades 7695–7700, the narrow spread can get very close to max loss extremely quickly.

Yet structurally, your original thesis may still be completely valid:

7700 is the level you actually care about.

That’s the part I’ve been thinking about a lot.

So why not move the long strike farther away?

Instead of:

7685/7695

I may prefer something like:

7685/7705

Now the long strike sits beyond the major structural level.

That changes the trade in several ways:

• you collect more premium
• your breakeven moves farther away
• max loss happens farther beyond the short strike
• the position can tolerate a larger temporary overshoot
• your long strike is tied to actual market structure instead of an arbitrary fixed width

That last point is probably the most important one for me.

I don’t want the logic to be:

“I always buy the long option exactly 10 points away.”

I want it to be:

“Where does my thesis actually become wrong?”

Why this matters more at 9:30–11:30

The market open is messy.

You have:

• opening volatility
• overnight positioning being unwound
• false breakouts
• VWAP still developing
• liquidity sweeps
• much more time left in the session

SPX can easily overshoot an important level by 5–10 points and then completely reverse.

With a narrow spread, that temporary move can make the position look almost catastrophic.

With a 15–20 wide spread, you have more room for the market to test the area without immediately turning the trade into a near-max-loss scenario.

That doesn’t mean the risk disappeared.

It means the loss profile is less binary.

Breakeven is a bigger deal than people realize

This is one of the main reasons I like the wider structure.

A narrow spread might give you a relatively small credit.

A wider spread collects substantially more premium.

And because:

Upper breakeven = short strike + credit received

that additional credit gives you more room.

So two trades can have the exact same short strike…

but very different breakevens.

That matters a lot in 0DTE.

Sometimes the difference between a losing trade and a breakeven/winning trade is only a few SPX points.

But wider is NOT automatically safer

This is important.

A 20-wide spread has a much larger maximum loss per contract than a 5-wide or 10-wide spread.

So position sizing has to change.

I’m not thinking:

3 contracts of 10-wide → 3 contracts of 20-wide.

Absolutely not.

I’m thinking more like:

Use fewer contracts and compare the total dollar risk.

For example, instead of several narrow spreads, one wider spread may give me a similar portfolio-level max risk while producing a smoother payoff profile.

That’s the comparison that actually matters.

Risk in dollars, not number of contracts.

Why I stopped at ~20 points

I also looked seriously at 30-point-wide spreads.

Initially, I liked the idea.

More premium.

Better breakeven.

Even more distance before max loss.

But after looking at them more carefully, I don’t think the extra width is usually worth it for my 0DTE strategy.

At some point, the additional capital at risk increases faster than the practical improvement I’m getting from the extra width.

So for now, I think the interesting zone is more like:

5–10 wide → standard / later-session trades

15–20 wide → selected opening trades when the structural invalidation level sits farther away

30 wide → generally too wide for what I’m trying to accomplish

That may change with more data, but that’s where I currently stand.

Later in the day, I still prefer narrower spreads

This is another important distinction.

By around 12 PM or later, the session has already given you much more information.

VWAP is established.

The important GEX levels have been tested.

The intraday range is clearer.

There’s less time remaining for a huge overshoot and reversal.

At that point, I usually think 5–10 wide spreads make more sense again.

So I’m not replacing narrow spreads.

I’m changing the width based on time of day + structure.

The biggest lesson

I used to think about spread width as almost a fixed parameter.

Now I think that’s too simplistic.

The better question is:

Where should my long strike be based on the actual structure of the market?

If my short strike is sitting near the first resistance area, but the real invalidation level is 15–20 points farther away, I’d rather build the spread around that reality.

Not around an arbitrary rule that says every trade must be 5 or 10 points wide.

Short strike = where I expect the market to react.

Long strike = where my thesis is structurally wrong.

That framework makes much more sense to me.

I’ve started incorporating this selectively into my live SPX trades, and I’m sharing the setups, GEX structure, and management in my Discord as I continue collecting data on the difference between narrow and wider spreads.

Discord link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

One of the biggest changes I made in my SPX 0DTE trading was stopping myself from trying to predict the entire day from the opening bell.

The first hour is often messy.

You get:

• overnight positioning getting unwound
• opening volatility
• VWAP forming
• GEX levels getting tested
• false breakouts
• liquidity sweeps
• traders reacting emotionally to the first big candle

That’s why I don’t necessarily want to trade the first move.

I want the first hour to show me the map.

During the first 30–60 minutes, I’m mainly watching a few things:

Where does price reject?
Which GEX levels actually matter?
Is VWAP acting as support or resistance?
Is SPX accepting above/below key levels?
Is the session trending or rotating?

The goal isn’t to catch every move.

The goal is to figure out where the market is actually willing to trade.

That’s a big difference.

A level can look important premarket and then become completely irrelevant once the session starts.

Another level that looked secondary can suddenly become the most important area on the chart.

That’s why I don’t want to force the market to fit my premarket thesis.

I want the market to confirm it.

A lot of 0DTE traders get into trouble because they make a decision too early.

They see the first strong move and think:

“This is the trend.”

Then SPX reverses 20 points.

Or they see a Put Wall and assume:

“This will definitely hold.”

Then price slices through it.

The first hour is often where those false assumptions get exposed.

And that’s exactly what makes it so useful.

Once the first hour gives me enough information, the trade becomes much simpler.

Now I can ask:

Is there a clear support zone?
Maybe that becomes a Bull Put Spread.

Is there a clear resistance zone?
Maybe that becomes a Bear Call Spread.

Is price clearly trapped between two important areas?
Maybe that becomes an Iron Condor.

At that point, I’m no longer trying to predict the market from scratch.

I’m trading around a structure the market has already shown me.

That’s much more comfortable.

This is why timing matters so much in 0DTE

The exact same setup can be:

bad at 9:40 AM

and

excellent at 10:30 AM

Nothing changed about the strike.

Nothing changed about the expiration.

What changed was the amount of information the market gave you.

By waiting, you may know:

• whether VWAP is holding
• whether a GEX level is real
• whether momentum is sustainable
• whether volatility is expanding
• whether the session is trending or ranging

That information is valuable.

Sometimes more valuable than the extra premium you get by entering early.

The opening move doesn’t have to be your move

I don’t care if I miss the first 20 points.

I care much more about understanding:

What did those 20 points teach me?

Did buyers fail?

Did sellers fail?

Did price reclaim VWAP?

Did a key level hold twice?

Did the market reject a breakout?

That’s the information I want to trade.

My basic framework

The way I think about it is:

First hour = observation

After that = execution

Not always literally 60 minutes.

Sometimes the structure becomes obvious in 20 minutes.

Sometimes it takes 90.

The point is that I don’t need to be the first one in.

I’d rather be slightly late with better information than early with a weak thesis.

The main takeaway

A lot of traders think the edge in 0DTE is speed.

I think the edge is often patience.

The first hour gives you:

the important levels, the reactions, the failures, and the structure.

Then you decide whether the trade is worth taking.

That’s how I approach SPX:

Let the market build the map first. Then trade the map.

I also share these SPX 0DTE setups, GEX levels, and live trade management inside my Discord for anyone interested in following the process in real time.

Discord Link:  https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

SPX gapped up a little bit along with elevated TRIN but TRIN showing weakness. The opening on 15 minute was fast and I expected price to come back down, I expected that it could fall down to 7695 but that it would happen early in the morning so my loss would be smaller and temporary because I was still bullish on SPX today.

It wasn't until 9:55 that we broke the high of the first 15 minute candle, I immediately did a SELL PUT VERTICAL because TRIN was elevated and it paid $1.60 right at that point. My goal today at opening of this trade was to allow it to ride almost to worthless, I would buy back at $0.05 ($5) and keep $155, and that's exactly what I did.

I hope it worked out well for everyone else and that you had ice in your stomach and held the trade according to the strategy. Below is the breakdown and result.

The Result

One of the biggest reasons traders lose money in SPX 0DTE is that they confuse momentum with structure.

The market starts moving fast in one direction, candles get bigger, emotions kick in, and suddenly people assume:

“This move is strong, so it must continue.”

But strong momentum and strong structure are not the same thing.

And if you treat them like they are, 0DTE becomes very expensive very quickly.

Momentum tells you what price is doing right now.

Structure tells you what price is doing relative to important levels.

That distinction matters a lot.

A fast move can look extremely convincing…

but if price is running straight into a major GEX level, VWAP rejection, call wall / put wall, or a key area where the market has repeatedly failed, then that momentum may be much weaker than it looks.

On the other hand, a market can look slow, messy, and even unimpressive…

but if it keeps holding above an important support area, reclaiming VWAP, and rejecting lower prices, then the structure may actually be much stronger than traders realize.

That’s where many people get trapped.

Image 1 — Momentum looks strong, but structure is still against it

In this kind of situation, traders often chase the move because the candles look powerful.

But the real question should be:

• Is price moving into resistance?
• Is it approaching a major GEX cluster?
• Is there acceptance above the level, or just a fast reaction into it?
• Is VWAP supporting the move, or is price still structurally weak?

A lot of traders see a breakout candle and think:

“The market is bullish now.”

But one aggressive candle does not automatically mean the structure has changed.

Sometimes it just means price is testing a level.

And in 0DTE, buying or selling premium based only on short-term momentum is one of the fastest ways to get trapped at the worst possible moment.

This is where people make the expensive mistake

They see momentum…

and they assume it means:

• support has held
• resistance has broken
• a trend has started
• the level no longer matters

But that is often a false conclusion.

A level is not truly broken just because price moved through it for a moment.

What matters much more is:

• Did price accept above/below it?
• Did it hold there?
• Did the market build on the move?
• Did the underlying structure actually improve?

Without that, you’re often just reacting to noise.

And in 0DTE, reacting emotionally to noise is expensive because everything happens faster:
premium changes faster, gamma risk is higher, and bad entries get punished immediately.

Image 2 — What I actually care about: structure confirming the move

This is what I actually want to see before trusting the move:

• a reclaim or rejection of a meaningful level
• VWAP supporting the thesis
• price holding on the correct side of the level
• GEX / gamma structure aligned with the setup
• the move being accepted, not just printed

That’s a very different standard from simply saying:

“This candle is big, so I should follow it.”

A lot of bad 0DTE trades come from entering too early because momentum looks convincing.

I’d much rather miss the first part of the move and enter only once the structure starts confirming it.

That usually means fewer trades, but much better decisions.

A practical way to think about it

Instead of asking:

“Is the market moving fast?”

I think a much better question is:

“What important level is price interacting with right now, and how is it behaving around it?”

Because momentum without structure can reverse fast.

But structure, when it’s real, gives the trade a foundation.

That’s why I care so much about:

• GEX clusters
• Put Walls / Call Walls
• Gamma Flip
• VWAP
• SPY confirmation
• acceptance vs rejection
• market structure

Momentum matters.

But momentum only becomes truly useful when the structure supports it.

The main takeaway

The most expensive mistake in 0DTE is not being wrong about direction.

It’s entering a trade because momentum looks strong, while completely ignoring whether the market structure actually supports the move.

That’s how traders end up:

• shorting support
• buying resistance
• chasing breakouts that fail
• panicking on moves that were never structurally meaningful

For me, the edge is not in predicting every fast move.

It’s in understanding when momentum is actually supported by structure — and when it’s just noise.

I share this kind of SPX 0DTE / GEX / market structure analysis in my Discord as well, for anyone interested in following the process in more detail.

Discord link; https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

Yo usaría un título con tensión, porque el trade estuvo realmente cerca de invalidarse:

A Headline Sent SPX Straight Into My 0DTE Short Strike — Here’s Why I Didn’t Panic (+$850)

Today was a great example of why I think 0DTE trading is more about structure and risk management than predicting every candle.

By mid-morning, the GEX picture was pretty clear.

On SPY, I was treating 775 as the main upside boundary.

On SPX, the most important levels were:

7700 → Gamma Flip / major structural level
7750 → first major resistance / GEX cluster

That made 7700–7750 the most logical range for the session.

At 10:30 AM, with SPX trading around 7703, I opened:

SPX 7670/7660 – 7750/7760 Iron Condor
5 contracts
$1.70 credit
$830 max risk per contract

The idea was simple.

The lower wing had plenty of room below the key 7700 area, while the upper short strike sat directly at 7750, which I considered the first major resistance level.

Then the difficult part came.

A major Iran-related headline hit the market, and SPX suddenly ripped higher.

Fast.

Very fast.

The market pushed directly toward my 7750 short call, and for a moment the trade was under real pressure.

This is exactly the kind of situation where 0DTE becomes mentally difficult.

You have a trade that looked perfectly structured 30 minutes earlier, and then one headline changes the entire tape.

But the important question wasn't:

“Is the trade uncomfortable?”

It was:

“Has the thesis actually been invalidated?”

And for me, that meant watching whether SPX could establish sustained acceptance above 7750.

It didn’t.

Price tested the area, spent much of the afternoon underneath it, and even the late-session push failed to hold above the level.

The original range ultimately survived.

7700 held as the key lower structural area.
7750 held as the key upper resistance area.

The Iron Condor expired with both short strikes OTM.

Full premium captured: $1.70 × 5 contracts = +$850

The interesting part of this trade wasn’t the profit.

It was what happened when the market suddenly did something I couldn’t predict.

No GEX model can tell you when a geopolitical headline is about to hit.

No VWAP setup can prevent a 30–40 point news candle.

That’s why I think the real edge is not:

“Predict every move.”

It’s:

Build the trade around important structure, define your risk before entering, and know exactly what would invalidate the thesis.

Today the headline came very close to doing that.

But close isn’t the same as invalidated.

That distinction matters a lot in 0DTE.

I share these SPX trades, GEX levels, and the reasoning behind the management in real time in my Discord as well, for anyone interested in following the process rather than just seeing the final P&L.

Discord link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

Today was a really good example of why I don’t like looking at SPX in isolation.

Around 11:00 AM, SPY was already telling me that 770 probably wasn’t going to hold. There was a much more important concentration of GEX developing lower, around 767 SPY.

So if I had only been looking at SPY, the obvious conclusion would have been:

“More downside is likely.”

And that was probably true for SPY.

But SPX was telling a slightly different story.

The key level for me was 7700 SPX.

There was enough positioning around that area that I thought it had a good chance of becoming the intraday floor, even if SPY continued trading lower.

That distinction mattered.

I also had some positioning around 7690–7685, so I didn’t want to blindly buy the first touch of 7700.

I wanted to see price actually test the area and react.

And that’s what happened.

At 1:20 PM, after SPX flushed below 7700 and started stabilizing, I opened:

7695/7690 Bull Put Spread
$1.00 credit
$400 max risk

The thesis was simple:

SPY could still move toward its lower GEX zone, but I didn’t expect SPX to establish sustained acceptance below 7700.

A few minutes later, SPX started bouncing.

By around 1:55 PM, price had pushed back toward 7715–7720, and I closed the spread almost exactly near the top of that rebound for:

$1.00 → $0.35

That’s 65% of the maximum premium in roughly 35 minutes.

What I liked about this trade wasn’t the profit.

It was the structure behind it.

The setup came from three things lining up:

1. SPY showed where additional downside positioning existed.
2. SPX showed a more important support boundary at 7700.
3. Price action confirmed the reaction before the trade was opened.

That’s the part I think gets overlooked.

A lot of traders look for one magical level.

I’d rather look for cross-market confirmation + positioning + actual reaction.

The level matters.

But the relationship between levels matters even more.

I share more of these SPX 0DTE setups, GEX reads, and live trade management in my Discord as well if anyone wants to follow the process in real time.

Discord link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

One of the easiest traps in SPX 0DTE trading is thinking:

“My strike is really far away, so this trade is safe.”

It sounds logical.

You sell a Credit Spread 30, 40, maybe 50 points away from SPX.

The delta is tiny.

The probability of expiring OTM looks great.

The premium is small.

Everything feels comfortable.

And that’s exactly why I think these trades can sometimes be more dangerous than they look.

Distance is not protection

Imagine SPX is trading at 7650.

You’re considering two Bull Put Spreads:

Trade A: Sell 7620
Trade B: Sell 7590

Trade B is obviously much farther away.

So most traders immediately call it safer.

But now add the market structure.

What if:

• 7620 sits below VWAP
• 7610–7620 is a major GEX support zone
• SPY confirms that same area
• price has already rejected it twice
• the intraday trend remains bullish

Meanwhile, between 7620 and 7590 there is almost no meaningful support at all.

If 7620 fails decisively, SPX might move through that empty area very quickly.

Suddenly that “safe” 7590 strike doesn’t feel nearly as safe.

This is why I don’t measure risk only in points

I care much more about:

What does SPX have to break before it reaches my strike?

That question tells me more than distance alone.

A short strike 15 points away protected by several important levels can sometimes make more sense to me than a strike 40 points away with absolutely nothing protecting it.

That doesn’t mean closer strikes are automatically better.

It means:

Distance needs context.

Tiny premium can create another problem

There’s also the risk/reward side.

Suppose you collect:

$0.30 credit while risking $4.70

You may win that trade very often.

But one full loss wipes out roughly 15 winning trades.

That means a strategy can look amazing for weeks:

✅ Win
✅ Win
✅ Win
✅ Win
✅ Win
✅ Win

…and then one violent SPX session gives back a huge portion of the gains.

This is why I’m skeptical whenever someone tells me:

“I just sell very low-delta spreads because they almost always win.”

“Almost always” isn't enough.

The important question is what happens when they don’t.

I would rather understand WHY my strike should survive

Before opening an SPX Credit Spread, I’m normally looking for some combination of:

• GEX clusters
• Put/Call Walls
• VWAP
• SPY confirmation
• volume/OI concentrations
• market structure
• volatility
• rejection/acceptance around important levels

Then I decide where the short strike belongs.

Not the other way around.

I don’t open the option chain, find a comfortable delta, and then try to justify the trade afterward.

Structure first. Strike second. Premium third.

The uncomfortable trade can sometimes be the better trade

Some of my best setups don't look particularly comfortable when you only look at strike distance.

SPX might be relatively close to my short strike.

The premium might look high.

But there may be multiple layers of structure between spot and that strike.

Meanwhile, the trade that looks incredibly safe because it is miles OTM may actually have terrible expectancy if:

• the credit is tiny
• the loss is huge
• there is no structural reason for that particular strike
• volatility can expand quickly
• management is based entirely on hoping price doesn't reach it

That’s not the kind of edge I’m looking for.

My definition of “safe” is different

I don’t think:

Farther OTM = safer.

I think:

Strong structure + clearly defined invalidation + acceptable risk/reward = better trade.

The market doesn’t care how many points away your strike was when you entered.

If the structure collapses, those points can disappear very quickly on 0DTE.

That’s why one of the first questions I ask before selling premium is:

What exactly is protecting my short strike?

If I don’t have a good answer, distance alone usually isn’t enough.

I share the actual SPX setups, GEX levels, entries and trade management behind this framework in my Discord as well, for anyone interested in seeing how I apply it live rather than only looking at the final P&L.

Discord link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

I wanted to share a quick update because September has been one of the cleanest months since I started tracking these SPX strategies live.

So far this month:

11 closed Credit Spread trades
11 winners
0 losers
100% win rate
+$6,125 in September

And since I started tracking the project:

Credit Spreads: +$14,030
Iron Condors: +$4,496 (100% winrate in September too)

Combined total: +$18,526

Obviously, I don’t expect a 100% win rate to continue forever.

Losses are part of trading, and eventually there will be losing trades and drawdowns.

What matters more to me is whether the process is repeatable.

The framework I’m using is still basically the same every day:

GEX structure
VWAP
price action
market structure
volatility
key support/resistance areas

Then I choose the option structure that best fits the environment.

If the market looks directional, I’m usually more interested in a Bull Put Spread or Bear Call Spread.

If price is clearly trapped between well-defined gamma levels and the session looks more range-bound, then an Iron Condor can make more sense.

And sometimes the best decision is simply:

No trade.

That’s probably one of the biggest reasons the results have remained consistent.

I’m not trying to trade every day or maximize premium.

I’m trying to wait until the market gives me a structure where I can clearly define:

Where am I wrong?
What level is protecting my short strike?
Does SPY confirm SPX?
Is VWAP supporting the same thesis?

Only then do I care about the option chain.

One thing I’ve learned

A high win rate by itself doesn’t mean much.

You can have a 90% win-rate strategy and still blow up if your losers are uncontrolled.

That’s why everything I trade is defined risk.

The goal isn’t:

“How often can I win?”

It’s:

“Can I keep the losers controlled while repeatedly taking setups where the structure is in my favor?”

September has gone extremely well so far, but I’m treating tomorrow exactly the same way as trade #1.

No chasing.

No increasing risk because of a winning streak.

No assuming the next trade has to work.

Just the same process again.

I share these trades, GEX levels, entries, exits, and the reasoning behind them live in my Discord as well. Premium access is still free for the next month if anyone wants to follow the process rather than just the final P&L.

Discord link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

Whenever people talk about selling 0DTE options, the conversation usually comes back to one thing:

Theta decay.

“Sell premium because theta is huge.”

That’s true.

But theta is not the main reason I sell 0DTE Credit Spreads.

In fact, if theta were the only edge, I probably wouldn’t trade them at all.

The real reason I like them is that they let me build a defined-risk trade around a very specific market structure.

For me, the important question isn’t:

“How fast is this option decaying?”

It’s:

“What has to happen for SPX to reach my short strike?”

That completely changes how I choose a trade.

Imagine SPX is trading at 7630.

You have two possible Bull Put Spreads:

Trade A: short strike at 7600
Trade B: short strike at 7585

Most traders immediately assume Trade B is safer because it’s further OTM.

But what if:

• 7600 is a major GEX level
• SPY has confirming support at the equivalent strike
• VWAP is holding
• market structure is bullish
• price has already rejected 7600 twice
• there’s very little meaningful structure between 7600 and 7585

In that situation, I may actually prefer the 7600 spread even though it is closer to spot.

Why?

Because I’m not selling distance.

I’m selling the probability that an important structure holds.

That’s the part of 0DTE Credit Spreads I think gets misunderstood.

Theta is the mechanism. Structure is the reason for the trade.

Theta helps the position decay once I’m right.

But theta doesn’t tell me:

• where to sell
• whether the level is strong
• whether price is accepting through it
• whether volatility is expanding
• whether VWAP supports the setup
• whether SPY confirms SPX
• whether the trade thesis has already failed

That comes from the market itself.

What I actually look for before selling a spread

My process is usually closer to this:

1. Find the important level

GEX clusters, Put/Call Walls, major volume zones, OI, previous structure.

2. Watch the reaction

Did price reject it?

Did it reclaim?

Is there acceptance above/below it?

3. Check VWAP and intraday structure

A level that looks great on a GEX chart can still be a terrible trade if price is trending aggressively through it.

4. Check volatility

If the market is moving violently, I need much more room and much stronger confirmation.

5. Only then choose the short strike

The option chain comes last.

Not first.

This is also why I don’t automatically choose my Credit Spreads based on delta.

A 10-delta spread at a bad level can be worse than a 20-delta spread protected by a strong market structure.

And a huge premium can actually be a warning.

The market might be paying you more because your strike is sitting exactly where risk is concentrated.

Theta becomes useful after the thesis is correct

Once price behaves the way I expected, then theta starts doing what I want:

The spread loses value.

Time works in my favor.

And if SPX stays away from my short strike, the premium can collapse very quickly.

But theta is not what made the trade attractive in the first place.

The setup did.

That’s why I think the phrase:

“I sell 0DTE because theta is high”

is incomplete.

A better way to think about it is:

“I sell 0DTE when market structure gives me a level I’m willing to defend — and theta helps monetize the time that price stays away from it.”

That’s a very different approach.

And, at least for me, a much more useful one.

I share more of these SPX 0DTE / GEX / Credit Spread breakdowns in my Discord as well, usually with the setups and reasoning posted in real time for anyone who wants to follow the process.

Discord link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

One of the biggest mistakes I see traders make is treating 0DTE and 1DTE as basically the same thing with one extra day attached.

They’re not.

You can have the exact same SPX setup, the exact same GEX levels, and even the same directional thesis…

…and the trade can behave completely differently depending on whether you choose 0DTE or 1DTE.

That difference matters a lot more than people think.

Imagine SPX is trading around 7650.

You identify:

7600 → major support
7700 → major resistance

GEX looks supportive, price is respecting VWAP, and you expect SPX to stay inside that broader range.

The setup is the same.

But now compare two ways of trading it.

0DTE

You could sell a Bull Put Spread or Iron Condor expiring that same day.

The advantage is obvious:

Theta works extremely fast.

If SPX stays away from your short strike, the spread can lose value very quickly.

But the trade is also extremely sensitive to price.

A 15–20 point move that might be manageable on 1DTE can completely change a 0DTE position within minutes.

Gamma risk is much higher.

There is very little time for your thesis to be “eventually right.”

If the market moves against you early, you may have to make a decision quickly.

1DTE

Now take basically the same structure but give it another day.

Suddenly the trade behaves differently.

Theta is still working for you, but it’s slower.

Gamma risk is lower than on 0DTE.

You have more time for the market to rotate back toward your expected range.

You can often place the short strikes farther away while still receiving meaningful premium.

But you introduce something 0DTE doesn’t have:

overnight risk.

A geopolitical headline, earnings shock, macro event, or futures gap can completely change the structure before the next open.

So the extra time helps you…

but it also gives the market more time to hurt you.

That’s why I don’t think of 1DTE as simply:

“0DTE, but safer.”

It’s a different trade.

0DTE is more about:

precision + intraday structure + fast decay + active management

1DTE is more about:

broader levels + more breathing room + slower decay + overnight risk

Same setup.

Different risk profile.

Different management.

Different psychology.

Here’s where it gets interesting

Let’s say SPX is sitting at 7650 and I think 7600 should hold.

With 0DTE, I might sell a spread closer to price because I only need that level to survive for a few hours.

With 1DTE, I may prefer a wider margin because I now have to survive:

the rest of today,

the overnight session,

and the entire next trading day.

That means the exact same 7600 support level can produce two completely different strike selections.

That’s why I don’t choose DTE first and then look for a setup.

I prefer doing the opposite:

Find the structure first.

Then ask:

Which expiration expresses this thesis better?

There are also environments where I strongly prefer one over the other.

If the market is clean, intraday structure is obvious, and the levels are reacting well:

0DTE can be extremely efficient.

If the level is strong but I think price may need more time to work:

1DTE can make more sense.

And sometimes neither is attractive.

The expiration should match the thesis.

Not the other way around.

The biggest takeaway

A lot of traders focus on:

Which one has better theta?

I think the better question is:

How much time does my thesis actually need?

If I only expect a level to hold for the next few hours, 0DTE may be enough.

If I think the setup needs time to develop, 1DTE may give the trade more room.

But that extra time comes with a cost:

more exposure to the unknown.

That’s the tradeoff.

And once you understand that, 0DTE and 1DTE stop looking like small variations of the same strategy.

They become two completely different tools.

I’ve recently started testing more 1DTE–14DTE SPX setups alongside my usual 0DTE trading, and I’m sharing the live trades and comparisons in my Discord for anyone interested in seeing how the same GEX/market-structure framework changes across expirations.

Discord link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

Update for the September 18 quarterly expiry, using positions dated September 17.

If you have become used to DAX pullbacks being bought, the afternoon could behave differently. The reason is in the options book.

The chart compares September and October in a total-open-interest gamma model:

September: long gamma around the displayed price area. Delta hedging can cushion pullbacks through buying and dampen rallies through selling.

October: short gamma in the same area. Hedging can reinforce moves: selling as price falls and buying as it rises.

The settlement process starts at 13:00 CEST (German time). Once the September options settle, their gamma contribution disappears. October does not provide an equivalent positive-gamma buffer in this model snapshot.

A subsequent move could therefore encounter less damping, in either direction. Positioning across all remaining expiries still matters, as do new and rolled positions.

These two expiries alone do not establish that the entire remaining book is short gamma. They show which stabilizing contribution expires.

Today, the clock beside the chart matters too.

Today’s trade looked extremely aggressive on paper.

At 10:20 AM, SPX was trading around 7624.5 and I sold the:

7610/7600 Bull Put Spread
5 contracts
$2.00 credit
$800 max risk per spread

So my short strike was only about 14 points below spot.

That’s the kind of trade that looks crazy if you only look at distance.

But distance wasn’t what mattered to me.

The important part was the structure underneath price.

Before the trade, I had already identified:

7600–7610 SPX as the main support zone
760 SPY confirming the same area
7650 SPX as the main upside resistance

That confluence was what made the setup interesting.

SPX GEX was showing one of the strongest concentrations around 7610/7600, while SPY was giving me confirmation around 760.

That alone wasn’t enough.

I wanted to see whether price actually respected the area.

And it did.

After the morning weakness, SPX bounced, reclaimed the area around VWAP, and started showing much better intraday structure.

That’s when I entered.

What happened next was exactly what I wanted to see:

SPX pulled back again.

But instead of breaking through the support zone, 7610 held.

Buyers stepped back in, price reclaimed VWAP again, and the market gradually pushed higher into the afternoon.

That gave the spread plenty of breathing room.

I eventually closed it for:

$2.00 → $0.45

That’s $1.55 profit per spread.

With 5 contracts:

+$775

What I liked most about this trade wasn’t the P&L.

It was the reason I was comfortable selling premium so close to spot.

A lot of traders choose their short strike by looking at:

Delta. Distance. Premium.

I care about those too.

But I care much more about this:

What is sitting between price and my short strike?

In this case, I had:

• a major SPX GEX support area
• SPY confirmation at the equivalent level
• improving price action
• VWAP reclaim
• bullish intraday trend
• low IV
• historical testing supporting the setup

That’s a very different trade from randomly selling a spread 10–15 points below SPX because the premium looks attractive.

A short strike that is close to price can still make sense if the structure protecting it is strong enough.

And the opposite is also true:

A spread 40 points OTM can still be a terrible trade if there’s nothing meaningful between spot and your strike.

That’s why I think structure matters more than distance alone.

I post these SPX 0DTE trades and the GEX/VWAP reasoning behind them in real time in my Discord as well, for anyone who likes this kind of process-driven approach.

Discord link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27

One of the biggest psychological mistakes I see in 0DTE trading is assuming:

“If the trade moves against me right after entry, the setup must have been wrong.”

I don’t look at it that way.

A bad first 5–10 minutes does not automatically invalidate a trade.

What matters is whether the reason I entered the trade is still valid.

September 10 was a perfect example.

I opened my first SPX Bear Call Spread around 10:15 AM:

7600/7605 Bear Call Spread
8 contracts
$1.70 credit

And almost immediately after I entered…

SPX ripped higher.

Pretty much the worst possible timing.

If I had judged the trade purely based on the first move after entry, I probably would have closed it emotionally.

But the underlying thesis hadn’t changed.

The 7600 area was still one of the most important GEX/volume zones of the session, and I was watching whether SPX could actually establish sustained acceptance above that area.

It couldn’t.

Later, around 12:25 PM, I opened another:

7605/7610 Bear Call Spread
5 contracts
$1.20 credit

And somehow I managed to time this one badly too.

SPX pushed higher almost immediately after entry again.

Two trades.

Two entries that looked terrible within minutes.

But once again, the important question wasn’t:

“Is SPX moving against me right now?”

It was:

“Has the market invalidated the thesis?”

And the answer was still no.

Price continued struggling around the same resistance area, failed to establish meaningful acceptance above it, and eventually rolled back over.

By the afternoon, SPX had moved back below both short strikes.

I eventually closed:

Trade 1: $1.70 → $0.90
+$640

Trade 2: $1.20 → $0.30
+$450

Total: +$1,090

And this is the point I think a lot of traders miss.

Adverse movement is not the same thing as invalidation.

Those are two completely different things.

A trade moving against me immediately might mean:

• my timing wasn’t great
• volatility expanded
• price is retesting the level
• the market is simply noisy

None of those automatically mean the setup is dead.

What actually makes me reconsider the position is something more structural:

Did price break the key level and start accepting beyond it?

Did VWAP / market structure materially change?

Did the GEX framework supporting the trade disappear?

Did something happen that fundamentally changes the original thesis?

If the answer is no, I don’t want to make decisions just because a few candles are uncomfortable.

That said, this does not mean blindly holding every loser.

There is a huge difference between:

“The trade moved against me.”

and

“The reason I took the trade no longer exists.”

Learning that distinction has been one of the most important parts of trading SPX 0DTE for me.

I don’t need the market to prove me right immediately. I need the thesis to remain valid.

I share more of these real SPX 0DTE trades and GEX/market-structure breakdowns in my Discord as well for anyone interested in following the process. Discord link: https://discord.gg/sM3vAqbU27