Well, yes, otherwise profitable traders would not be consistently profitable traders. If it were difficult then results would more or less be random. Well there are heaps of sectors to trade based on good value, trading the SPX again is a diluted trade no matter what. There is always a sector running hot, be it gold, banks, technology, etc. Right this moment its banks and mining along with gold. Fintechs on the ASX are running hot.
And I would argue that spreads model more consistently (and "behave" better) than flat price outright markets.
Hhhmmmmmm...... Yes, perhaps less volatile, I tend to take riskier trades but my 'insurance' is in multiple positions. Buffett says he's not in favor of diversification, I disagree, having multiple positions is like spreading risk where nearly always something is working producing a result, ie like your consistent spread model. So I tend to take multiple positions in strong sectors.
This is the thing, you do not know among your trades will give you the best returns ahead of time. So, if you have 5 trades with atleast, one potentially giving you 5R in returns, it would be foolish to try and pick and choose which one. Chances are good, you would miss it. So, take all 5 and let it rip. Collect your monies when all is said and done.
Yes, imo, spreads are countertrend and cause dilution of the strongly held position, ie Nasdaq. Better going with the trend with multiple positions to spread risk rather have that money which is uncorrelated to the trend, ie short SPX. Anyhow, bottom line, spreads must work otherwise professionals wouldn't employ them, but I think there are better ways of handling multiple trades.