Take the specification this site uses on the bull put spread page: sell the 95 put, buy the 90 put, 45 days out, stock at $100. That prices at a $0.93 credit — $93 for one contract.
| Target, as % of max profit | You buy it back for | You keep | That is this much of the maximum |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25% | $0.70 | $23 | a quarter |
| 50% | $0.47 | $46 | half |
| 75% | $0.23 | $70 | three quarters |
| 100% | $0.00 (expiry) | $93 | all of it |
Every figure in that table is arithmetic from the specification above at 25% volatility and a 4% rate. None of it is a measured result.
The case for a profit target isn’t that it makes more per trade. It plainly makes less.
If a test closes at the target using a price the market only printed later in the day, it is reading tomorrow’s paper. A profit target has to be checkable at the moment the rule says to check it — or the result belongs to a trader who could see the future.
It is the most repeated one, which is not the same thing. It comes from popular options education rather than from anything this site has measured, and it is on the list to test.
Usually yes, and that is exactly why win rate is the wrong number to judge it on. Taking smaller wins more often raises the percentage that win while lowering what each one is worth.
Many traders scale it — higher targets early, lower ones late. It is a reasonable idea and a testable one. It also doubles the number of settings you are choosing, which is its own risk.
Whichever you named first in the specification. If you named neither first, you have two strategies and no way to tell which one you traded.
No result is published on profit targets yet.
The exit ladder run will close one set of entries at 25%, 50% and 75% alongside the other exits, and score them on expectancy rather than win rate. Until then, every test article on this site names the target it used.