Nobody talks about fill quality when selling premium. It's been quietly killing my returns.
u/ProgramNo456 ·
Reddit — r/thetagang
· March 12, 2026 at 22:04
· ⬆ 91 pts
· 💬 42 comments
| View on Reddit ↗
AI Summary
Summary
The post argues that poor fill quality, wide bid-ask spreads, and low liquidity in options chains are significant hidden costs that erode the returns of premium-selling strategies like the wheel.
The author's thesis is that traders, especially those using IV rank screeners, often select high-IV stocks that lack sufficient liquidity, leading to high slippage on entry and making it difficult and costly to manage or roll positions that move against them.
Quality assessment: This is well-researched DD. The author provides a structured, logical argument based on two years of personal trading experience, identifies a specific problem (liquidity traps), and offers a clear, actionable framework for analysis, including a tool to help others.
Score91
Comments42
Upvote %55%
▶ Full Post Text
**I've been selling CSPs and running the wheel for about two years.** The strategy makes sense on paper — collect premium, manage assignment, repeat. But my actual returns kept lagging my backtests by a frustrating margin and I couldn't figure out why.
Wasn't my strike selection. Wasn't my DTE. It was fills.
**The IV screener trap**
Here's how most of us pick stocks to sell premium on: pull up an IV rank screener, sort by IVR, find something juicy at 60-70, sell a CSP at 30Δ, collect premium. Seems reasonable.
The problem: the stocks with the highest IV rank are often the ones with the worst fill quality. High IV comes from event risk and low liquidity. Those are the same names where market makers widen spreads dramatically at the strikes you're actually selling. The premium looks attractive — until you factor in that you're already giving up 3-5% on entry and another 3-5% when you try to close or roll.
Someone in this sub described it as: "Fills are pure shit, no other words to describe."
That was about selling puts on high-IV small-caps. Accurate.
**The rolling trap is the real killer**
This is the one that actually cost me the most. A CSP goes against me, I want to roll down and out. I open the chain, find a strike I like further out, and place the order at mid. It just sits there. I adjust. Sits there. Meanwhile the stock keeps moving.
The issue is strike coverage. On a lot of mid-caps, OI is concentrated at 2-3 popular strikes. Everything else is thin. When you're rolling to a non-standard strike, you're negotiating with one market maker with zero competition. They know you need to move. They set the price.
The post "The amount of people posting here with no clue is too damn high" from this sub mentioned someone opening a 50k AVGO position without understanding how spreads work. But even people who understand spreads often don't check whether the strikes they'd need to roll to actually have meaningful OI.
**What I now check before selling premium on any name:**
1. **Spread at my actual sell delta (not ATM)** — high-IV stocks often have 4-6% spreads at 25-30Δ
2. **Liquid strike count** — how many strikes within ±10% of current price have real two-sided markets? Less than 5 means you're trapped if you need to roll
3. **Slippage at my contract size** — 20 contracts on a thin name is very different from 20 on SPY
4. **OI distribution** — is OI spread across strikes or stacked at one or two?
I found a free tool that shows exactly this — spread by delta bucket, liquid strike count, order book depth, and slippage estimates at different position sizes. Covers 4,200+ names. [https://optionpilot.ainvest.com/liquidity-checker](https://optionpilot.ainvest.com/liquidity-checker) — no login, no paywall, just type a ticker.
Run your current wheel candidates through it before entering. The number of names that look great on an IV screener but have 3 or fewer rollable strikes is genuinely alarming.
Happy to discuss how we score it or what separates a truly liquid name from a "liquid-looking" one in the comments.
The author contrasts the experience of trading thin, illiquid names with trading highly liquid instruments like SPY, noting that "20 contracts on a thin name is very different from 20 on SPY." This implies that for strategies sensitive to liquidity and fill quality, such as selling premium, highly liquid underlyings like SPY are superior choices. They offer tight spreads, deep order books, and numerous strikes with high open interest, mitigating the "rolling trap" and slippage costs. The author's framework implicitly favors trading options on highly liquid, large-cap ETFs like SPY over high-IV, illiquid small or mid-cap stocks to minimize transaction costs and ensure ease of position management. The primary risk is that the premium collected on highly liquid ETFs like SPY is significantly lower than on high-IV stocks, potentially leading to lower overall returns if volatility remains low. The strategy also remains exposed to systemic market risk.
The author references a cautionary tale about a trader opening a large AVGO position without understanding how spreads work. AVGO is a high-priced, high-IV, large-cap tech stock. While the reference is a warning, it also highlights AVGO as a name that attracts significant options volume but can have wide spreads, especially on large orders. This makes it a perfect candidate for the author's liquidity analysis framework. Before selling premium on a name like AVGO, a trader should use the author's checklist: analyze the bid-ask spread at the desired delta, check the number of liquid strikes for rolling, and assess the open interest distribution to avoid liquidity traps. AVGO is subject to high volatility from earnings, AI sector news, and market sentiment shifts. Even with good liquidity, a sharp adverse move can make rolling difficult and lead to significant losses.
The author explicitly warns against selling puts on "high-IV small-caps," stating that "Fills are pure shit" for these instruments. The Russell 2000 (IWM) is the primary index and ETF for US small-cap stocks. The characteristics the author warns against—high implied volatility, event risk, and low liquidity in individual names—are hallmarks of the small-cap universe. This creates a high-risk environment for premium sellers due to wide spreads and poor fill quality. Based on the author's criteria, small-cap stocks and, by extension, their primary ETF (IWM), should be avoided for premium-selling strategies due to the high probability of encountering the exact liquidity and fill quality issues that destroy returns. An investor could miss out on periods of high premium generation in small caps if volatility spikes and they are able to secure good fills. Some individual small-cap names may have better liquidity than the average.
This Reddit post, published March 12, 2026,
features u/ProgramNo456
discussing SPY, AVGO, IWM.
3 trade ideas extracted by AI with direction and confidence scoring.