We read about the implied statistical edge concerning options all the time, but it seems that there is no statistical edge with any options strategy that I can think of. Now my mathematical aptitude isn't that great, but this is why I am posting it here for critique. I think most option strategies act more or less as a stop loss. Supposedly, the most conservative strategy would be a butterfly, but is it that much more conservative than a regular vertical spread? If there isn't a statistical edge with a butterfly over a simple vertical spread, then people are losing money on commission. Here is a pattern that I see with a 50/50 chance with a random option. Get out when I double my money. Get out when I lose half. Double your money. Lose half. Double your money. Lose half. If I started with $100, I would end up with about $100 (not counting commission) no matter what the strategy is. Obviously, this isn't a realistic scenario, but it's just an idealized illustration of profits and losses with option hedging. I thought there is a statistical edge with a far out-of-the-money short spread. This would be a steady trickle of money, but I think once in a while all those pennies will be lost by a major move and you end up about breaking even again. I realize this is quite an inaccurate way to describe statistical probabilities, but this is just my guestimation that there is no statistical edge with options --or at least anything worthwhile. I think the only way to have an edge is to predict one or all of these things: implied volatility, historical volatility, and price movement of the stock.