Add training workflow, datasets, and runbook

training_data/curated/text/39f370eb49a1d054c09585b9bc8abca0e7df3b73738e9ca3accf28fc72720044.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+Day Seven
+This was the quiet day of the week, and a welcome respite. On this day, the
+stock rose just $0.25. The rise in price helped a bit. Mary was still long 560
+deltas from Friday. Negative gamma took only a small bite out of her profit.
+The P&(L) can be broken down into the profit attributable to the starting
+delta of the trade, the estimated loss from gamma, and the gain from theta.
+Mary ends these seven days of trading worse off than she started. What
+went wrong? The bottom line is that she sold volatility on an asset that
+proved to be volatile. A $4 drop in price of a $42 dollar stock was a big
+move. This stock certainly moved at more than 25 percent volatility. Day
+four alone made this trade a losing proposition.
+Could Mary have done anything better? Yes. In a perfect world, she
+would not have covered her negative deltas on day 3 by buying 280 shares
+at $41 and another 280 at $42. Had she not, this wouldn’t have been such a
+bad week. With the stock ending at $38.25, she lost $1,050 on the 280
+shares she bought at $42 ($3.75 times 280) and lost $770 on the 280 shares
+bought at $41 ($2.75 times 280). Then again, if the stock had continued
+higher, rising beyond $42, those would have been good buys.
+Mary can’t beat herself up too much for protecting herself in a way that
+made sense at the time. The stock’s $2 rally is more to blame than the fact
+that she hedged her deltas. That’s the risk of selling volatility: the stock may
+prove to be volatile. If the stock had not made such a move, she wouldn’t
+have faced the dilemma of whether or not to hedge.