Add training workflow, datasets, and runbook

training_data/curated/text/59fe7b627bb63595bd7142725aab39466b71a1a90f4cf0c3d9e22c0928ed5411.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+What Susie will want to know is why she made $800. Why not more?
+Why not less, for that matter? When trading delta neutral, especially with
+more complex trades involving multiple legs, a manual computation of each
+leg of the spread can be tedious. And to be sure, just looking at the profit or
+loss on each leg doesn’t provide an explanation.
+Susie can see where her profits or losses came from by considering the
+profit or loss for each influence contributing to the option’s value. Exhibit
+12.6 shows the breakdown.
+EXHIBIT 12.6 Profit breakdown by greek.
+Delta
+Susie started out long 0.20 deltas. A $2 rise in the stock price yielded a $40
+profit attributable to that initial delta.
+Gamma
+As the stock rose, the negative delta of the position increased as a result of
+negative gamma. The delta of the stock remained the same, but the negative
+delta of the 50 call grew by the amount of the gamma. Deriving an exact
+P&(L) attributable to gamma is difficult because gamma is a dynamic
+metric: as the stock price changes, so can the gamma. This calculation
+assumes that gamma remains constant. Therefore, the gamma calculation
+here provides only an estimate.
+The initial position gamma of −1.6 means the delta decreases by 3.2 with
+a $2 rise in the stock (–1.60 times the $2 rise in the stock price). Susie, then,
+would multiply −3.2 by $2 to find the loss on −3.2 deltas over a $2 rise. But
+she wasn’t short 3.2 deltas for the whole $2. She started out with zero deltas
+attributable to gamma and ended up being 3.2 shorter from gamma over that
+$2 move. Therefore, if she assumes her negative delta from gamma grew
+steadily from 0 to −3.2, she can estimate her average delta loss over that
+move by dividing by 2.