As I use AI and AI created programs to drive my investment portfolio, I considered it was a good time to step back and have a closer look at the things AI is generating and perform an “audit” on what I’m doing right now. Who better to audit AI than another AI?
The image below has the output for my base put ratio app which scans options data to provide me with optimum options trade based on the closing data from the previous day. The image below has two yellow highlighted options. The top one suggesting 660 put strikes and 670 call strikes was recommended by the app which was created using Google’s Antigravity platform.
I’ve been using this app with good success but I have been a bit bothered by the fact that I rarely go with the recommended top option. The second item highlighted in the image is one that I would choose to execute and I manually chose that option. So I wanted to understand why that has been the case but rather than make a biased decision I decided to ask another AI to look at the data and tell me what it would recommend.
ChatGPT Response
You’ve highlighted two QQQ ratio put spreads (1 long / 2 short) with the same expiration but different widths. Let’s compare them cleanly.
🟡 Trade A (Top Highlight)
- Structure: Buy 670 / Sell 2×660
- Net Credit: $27.10
- Breakeven: 622.90
- Safety Drop: 6.2%
- Width: 10
👍 Pros
- Higher credit → more immediate premium
- Smaller spread width → less tail risk
- Easier to manage if trade goes wrong
👎 Cons
- Less downside cushion (only ~6.2%)
- Lower overall margin for error
🟡 Trade B (Bottom Highlight)
- Structure: Buy 670 / Sell 2×650
- Net Credit: $20.06
- Breakeven: 609.94
- Safety Drop: 8.1%
- Width: 20
👍 Pros
- Much better downside protection
- Lower breakeven → stock can fall more and you still profit
- More forgiving if market drifts down
👎 Cons
- Wider spread → larger tail risk if QQQ crashes hard
- Lower credit collected
⚖️ Which is better?
🎯 If your goal is safer, higher-probability trading:
👉 Trade B (670 / 650) is better
- Bigger cushion (8.1% vs 6.2%)
- Lower breakeven → more room to be wrong
- More aligned with “probability selling” strategies
💰 If your goal is maximize premium / tighter risk:
👉 Trade A (670 / 660) is better
- Higher credit collected
- Smaller structure → less catastrophic loss
- More efficient if you actively manage positions
🧠 The key tradeoff
You’re choosing between:
- Trade A:
“Pay me more now, but I have less room to be wrong” - Trade B:
“Pay me less, but give me more breathing room”
🔥 My blunt take
👉 Trade B is the more professional setup
Why:
- The extra ~2% downside cushion matters a lot
- Markets tend to drift down faster than up
- That cushion often saves trades in real conditions
BUT…
👉 If you don’t manage risk well, Trade B can hurt more in a crash due to the wider spread.
🧩 Bottom line
- Best risk-adjusted trade: ✅ 670 / 650 (Trade B)
- Best premium efficiency: ✅ 670 / 660 (Trade A)
My Thoughts
So ChatGPT agrees with my thinking and views it as a more “professional” setup. But I think the truth is that I like to manage my risk a bit tighter. If I were younger and not close to retirement, I’d probably do the recommended trade but I consider hanging on to my nest egg more important than earning an extra percentage point with higher risk on a trade.
Share The Wealth
Are you using AI to audit your investment portfolio yet? Don’t be afraid to get a second, third or fourth opinion from AI!