Skip to content
All library documents

Binary-Option Stakes, Kelly Sizing, and Probability Measures

Article Quant Q&A · Author: felme

Summary

The document asks whether binary options can produce a position that doubles on success and halves on failure when the event is close to equally likely. Its algebra shows that the desired payoffs imply a particular option quantity and purchase price, but that price is inconsistent with a binary priced near one half. The response reframes the issue around the difference between real-world outcome probabilities and the risk-neutral probabilities used to price options. It invokes Kelly’s criterion to determine the fraction of capital to stake using both the offered odds and the investor’s actual probability estimate.

The answer also points out that a daily close-to-close event is affected by overnight price movement: by the trading session’s start, the market may already have moved, leaving less time for the remaining outcome to develop. It suggests that simply holding the market could explain the apparent opportunity under an elementary efficient-market view. These are conceptual observations, not a worked Kelly calculation or evidence of an exploitable edge. The discussion does not specify transaction costs, payoff details, or how to estimate probabilities, so it does not establish that the proposed binary-option strategy is profitable.

Key ideas

  • A target payoff profile constrains both the binary-option quantity and its purchase price.
  • Risk-neutral probabilities used for option valuation differ from real-world outcome probabilities.
  • Kelly sizing uses the available odds and the bettor’s estimated true probability to set a capital fraction.
  • Overnight gaps affect the price and remaining time of a daily close event.
  • The answer does not provide evidence that the apparent opportunity is a profitable arbitrage.

Tags

Full text
# Creating a doubling and halving position


# Creating a doubling and halving position












I want to create a position that either multiplies with $1+u$ (outcome $U$) or $1-d$ (outcome $D$). The probability of $U$ is denoted by $P(U) = \pi$. The initial value of the position is $V_0$. Given outcome $U$ the value of the position is $V_U = (1+u)V_0$, and given outcome $D$ it is $V_D = (1-d)V_0$.

More specifically, I am trying to create a doubling or halving position with more or less equal probability of $U$ and $D$ occurring, i.e. $\pi \approx 0.50$. I was thinking of using binary options that pay 1 when $U$ is the outcome. I was also thinking the position could be created using binaries and holding cash. So, $V_U = 2V_0 = \frac{V_0}{2} + N*P_U = \frac{V_0}{2} + N, P_U = 1$ where $N$ is the number of options in the position and $P_U$ is the option payout at success. $V_D = \frac{1}{2}V_0 = V_0 - NP_0$ where $P_0$ is the initial price of the binary option. I want to find $N$ and $P_0$ such that the value is doubled at success and halfed at non-success.

We find that $N = \frac{3}{2}V_0$ and that $P_0 = 1/3$. However, this breaches the $\pi$ condition. If I am purchasing daily binary options on whether S&P 500 closes above its last close, one would assume that the binary option would be priced near $0.50$ at the beginning of the day.

How should I construct this portfolio?

## Answer by justin-- (score 2)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/4430

First of all, don't forget that there are two different probability measures at play here: the frequentist market measure that reflects actual observation of the market "in the long run" and the market-neutral martingale measure which is pertinent for pricing options. More or less, we can take the frequentist measure, and "back out" the effects of market beta in order to arrive at a martingale measure that avoids counting a position as an arbitrage solely because it is long in the market and participates in the natural tendency of the market to go up over time.

Now, as for creating a doubling and halving position, it is actually Kelly's criterion---with the odds stated (available to bet) in a market-neutral martingale measure but the true odds in a frequentist market measure---that determines the optimal fraction of $V_0$ to bet on the binary option each day, and whether you really want to double or halve, or if some other fraction is more appropriate.

Also, remember at the beginning of the day, at least 17.5 hours in most cases have elapsed since the last close, the market in all likelihood has already gapped significantly up or down, and only 6.5 hours remain till close. Whatever time remains in the day, that is the arbitrage you have to take advantage of, but if the option is at or near the money, there is still time to take full advantage of it. In this case, though, it seems that the arbitrage consists of simply being long in the market, at least on an elementary theory that markets are efficient.

But then again, I'm a skeptic of "quant," and I believe that markets are generally more efficient than people give them credit for.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.