It's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about by the terms you use incorrectly. Please excuse yourself from this grownup discussion.
That might work for you but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Have you always had trouble staying on topic?
So back to the serious people here. When my puts get assigned, I'll short MNQ contracts that add up to a notional value equal to the TQQQ position. There are two issues I see with this. First, when to drop the MNQ position is the market starts moving up. Second, is a 1:1 value the correct amount? How does the 3x of TQQQ play into this?
You should stop using that word. You're going to cover your risk in TQQQ and short calls, ostensibly making the call naked risk. It's mind-numbing stupid.
Am I correct in figuring this would be profitable unless price closed between the two strikes, or dropped widely enough so that your cost of the call + funds from two calls sold didn't counter the loss?
Say what? Hedging can be done with pretty much anything, as long as you have correlation. Since basic math seems to be a stumbling block, try paper-trading, say, 50 shares of SPY and get short one /MES contract, then watch the P&L. Take as long as you need...
What word? If I get assigned TQQQ and then short MNQ I'm at 0 Delta ish. I then sell covered calls against the TQQQ position. If TQQQ recovers or gets called, I'll BTC the MNQ short. The only risk I see is if I hold the MNQ short while TQQQ goes up past my assignment value. Why wouldn't this work?
Shares and short two 35C = short one lot 35 straddle. Ideally used in skewed mkts, so better to run it on 2X bear funds. What two strikes? Between the short calls and the long wing? Quite a few variables; vol-line, skew (is spot above or below short strike?), time remaining, spot/vol corr. Empirically, overwrites/bull synthetic straddles dramatically outperform buy-writes.