Clarification on options jargon regarding spreads
Yes. It seems to me you got it right.  On my site, Stock Options Cafe, my last post was an illustration of a bullish call spread. In this case, I bought a 50 call, and sold the 60 call. This is a debit order as I was paying money, not collecting a new premium.
&gt; mostly-passive funds consisting of a sufficiently diverse array of holdings with historically* low volatility  &gt; 3.Market it with excessive jargon to impress laymen   A quantitative-based global strategy with a wide coverage of asset classes that exhibit returns robustness and high inverted-alpha*. Uses the cutting edge of artificial intelligence to synthetically replicate index portfolios that maximizes benchmark correlation.   ^^*Defined ^^as ^^1/alpha, ^^as ^^alpha ^^-&gt; ^^0 ^^then ^^inverted ^^alpha ^^-&gt; ^^infinity. Well, OS/2 is a pretty hard target for it by nature.  Most of that which are venues for spread in Windows and *NIX are actually not part of the operating system with OS/2.  It wasn't built for compatibility with existing standards, but as an all new standard in most regards.  Everything there for existing standards like TCP/IP,  is basically a plug-in that interacts with programs that would use it.  This makes it very hard for something external to actually affect the core system.  Even a lot of OS/2's out of the box functions are implemented in this manner. Option liquidity and underlying liquidity tend to go hand in hand. According to regulation, what kinds of issues can have options even trading are restricted by volume and cost due to registration with the authorities. Studies have shown that the introduction of option trading causes a spike in underlying trading. Market makers and the like can provide more option liquidity if there is more underlying and option liquidity, a reflexive relationship. The cost to provide liquidity is directly related to the cost for liquidity providers to hedge, as evidenced by the bid ask spread. Liquidity providers in option markets prefer to hedge mostly with other options, hedging residual greeks with other assets such as the underlying, volatility, time, interest rates, etc because trading costs are lower since the two offsetting options hedge most of each other out, requiring less trading in the other assets. Silvrback is the best minimalistic blogging platform for the programmers and anyone looking for a jargon free blog posting platform. With simple but highly effective features, Silvrback provides a distraction free blogging platform. You can write, create content, share images, code, and post and do so much more without any confusion. The features save you time and effort and helps you stay focussed. 1) Yes, both of your scenarios would lead to earning $10 on the transaction, at the strike date. If you purchased both of them (call it Scenario 3), you would make $20. 2) As to why this transaction may not be possible, consider the following: The Call and Put pricing you describe may not be available. What you have actually created is called 'arbitrage' - 2 identical assets can be bought and sold at different prices, leading to a zero-risk gain for the investor. In the real marketplace, if an option to buy asset X in January cost $90, would an option to sell asset X in January provide $110?  Without adding additional complexity about the features of asset x or the features of the options, buying a Call option is the same as selling a Put option [well, when selling a Put option you don't have the ability to choose whether the option is exercised, meaning buying options has value that selling options does not, but ignore that for a moment]. That means that you have arranged a marketplace where you would buy a Call option for only $90, but the seller of that same option would somehow receive $110.  For added clarity, consider the following: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $200? Then, you could exercise your call option, buying a share for $90, selling it for $200, making $110 profit. You would not exercise your put option, making your total profit $110. Now consider: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $10? You would buy for $10, exercise your put option and sell for $110, making a profit of $100. You would not exercise your call option, making your total profit $100. This highlights that if your initial assumptions existed, you would earn money (at least $20, and at most, unlimited based on a skyrocketing price compared to your $90 put option) regardless of the future price. Therefore such a scenario would not exist in the initial pricing of the options. Now perhaps there is an initial fee involved with the options, where the buyer or seller pays extra money up-front, regardless of the future price. That is a different scenario, and gets into the actual nature of options, where investors will arrange multiple simultaneous transactions in order to limit risk and retain reward within a certain band of future prices.  As pointed out by @Nick R, this fee would be very significant, for a call option which had a price set below the current price. Typically, options are sold 'out of the money' initially, which means that at the current share price (at the time the option is purchased), executing the option would lose you money. If you purchase an 'in the money' option, the transaction cost initially would by higher than any apparent gain you might have by immediately executing the option. For a more realistic Options example, assume that it costs $15 initially to buy either the Call option, or the Put option. In that case, after buying both options as listed in your scenarios you would earn a profit if the share price exceeded $120 [The $120 sale price less the $90 call option = $30, which is your total fee initially], or dropped below $80 [The $110 Put price less the $80 purchase price = $30]. This type of transaction implies that you expect the price to either swing up, or swing down, but not fall within the band between $80-$120. Perhaps you might do this if there was an upcoming election or other known event, which might be a failure or success, and you think the market has not properly accounted for either scenario in advance. I will leave further discussion on that topic [arranging options of different prices to create specific bands of profitability / loss] to another answer (or other questions which likely already exist on this site, or in fact, other resources), because it gets more complicated after that point, and is outside the root of your question. "If I really understood it, you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time.    So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. You are not betting as in ""betting on the outcome of an horse race"" where the money of the participants is redistributed to the winners of the bet. You are betting on the price movement of a security. To do that you have to buy/sell the option that will give you the profit or the loss. In your case, you would be buying or selling an option, which is a financial contract. That's trading. Then, since anyone should have the same technic (call when a currency rises and put when it falls)[...] How can you know what will be the future rate of exchange of currencies? It's not because the price went up for the last minutes/hours/days/months/years that it will continue like that. Because of that everyone won't have the same strategy. Also, not everyone is using currencies to speculate, there are firms with real needs that affect the market too, like importers and exporters, they will use financial products to protect themselves from Forex rates, not to make profits from them. [...] how the brokers (websites) can make money ? The broker (or bank) will either: I'm really afraid to bet because I think that they can bankrupt at any time! Are my fears correct ? There is always a probability that a company can go bankrupt. But that's can be very low probability. Brokers are usually not taking risks and are just being intermediaries in financial transactions (but sometime their computer systems have troubles.....), thanks to that, they are not likely to go bankrupt you after you buy your option. Also, they are regulated to insure that they are solid. Last thing, if you fear losing money, don't trade. If you do trade, only play with money you can afford to lose as you are likely to lose some (maybe all) money in the process." "There are two components of option valuation, the value that's ""in the money"" and the ""time value."" In the case of the $395 put, that option was already in the money and it will move less than the stock price by a bit as there will still be some time value there. $22.52 is intrinsic value (the right word for 'in the money') and the rest is time. The $365 strike is still out of the money, but as jldugger implied, the chance of it going through that strike is better as it's $6.66 closer.  Looking at the options chain gives you a better perspective on this. If Apple went up $20 Monday, and down $20 Tuesday, these prices would be higher as implied volatility would also go higher.  Now, I'd hardly call a drop of under 2% ""tanking"" but on the otherhand, I'd not call the 25% jump in the option price skyrocketing. Options do this all the time. Curious what prompted the question, are you interested in trading options? This stock in particular?" I'll just copypasta out of the book for the sake of clarity:   * If you think about it, you see that the only brokers who touch the switch for light bulb number 64 are those whose numbers are divisors of 64. That is, light bulb 64 has its state changed by brokers whose numbers are factors of 64. This means brokers 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64. Because light bulb 64 is originally off, it must be after this odd number of switches that it is on.   * You want to be short a put if you expect a price rise. In this case, you expect to keep the option premium when the option expires worthless.   There are a few pages worth of questions for the options, so the explanation for the IBM one is somewhat limited.