No a stock has a delta of 1... Delta is how much the value of something changes when the underlying changes by 1... so for stocks, it's 1... For an option it depends on which strike compared to underlying, and also depends on volatility, interest rate, dividend... etc. So if it's ATM, it is indeed (close to) 0.50... but the usual multiplier is 100, so an ATM call has 0.50 x 100 deltas. You buy 1 call, the stock moves up $1... the call value goes up by 0.50, but position value up by $50... So 1 ATM call option = 0.50 x 100 = moves like 50 stocks... untill gamma kicks in. If you need to get your theory updated from investopedia and wikipedia... I'd be worried....
In generic terms: Can you apply the same approach to futures? Of course Not! One contract of futures cannot be used with one long put options (on futures) to form a straddle! Neither for 50 futures contracts with one put options! How can you form a straddle using futures with one put options (on futures)? To say, "buy some puts for 50 deltas + 50 deltas in stock" is correct! To say, "buy 1 put of 0.5 delta + equivalent deltas in stock" is correct! To say, " buy 1 put of 0.5 delta + 50 pieces stock " is also correct! To say, " buy 1 put (either of 0.5 delta? or 50 deltas? But one put cannot have 50 deltas! ) + 50 deltas in stock" is just very doubtful!
BTW, if you find anything wrong in the page contents with those sites, you may consider raising proper arguments here, assuming you have better theory, knowledge and practical experience than those content providers!
Come on man, everyone knows the delta is per-future specific. It's the general idea that matters, not the exact specifics of the deltas. Stocks were obviously used as the example because the multiplier is easy and accessible for everyone to understand.
I know I am a slow learner. I learned options from options books, many of them! Experience in options trading is definitely more important and useful! In generic terms: Long 1 underlying contract plus long 2 put options contracts is a long synthetic straddle. Long 1 underlying contract plus long 1 put options contract is a long synthetic call! Not a long synthetic straddle! Then we learn further about the details and analyses for such as components, delta, other Greeks, risk profile, etc. within each of them.
put call parity....synthetics....they are equivalent... if not then we all would sell the straddle and buy the synthetic and lock in risk free money! This line of reasoning is so fucktarded and vagile it is easy to see where all the lost money comes from in the market..
I've argued/challenged the above equivalence of synthetic options for several years on ET, on and off. That can be searched!
They are synthetically equivalent and any difference due to actual market pricing is not exploitable unless you are a market maker doing high volume repeatedly.
imo, referring to pull call parity (which is derived mainly for "pricing" purpose, AFAIK): Considering only the final risk profile of an options contract at expiration, rather than the options' whole life-cycle, can only provide a partial solution. That could be risky, sometimes! Cottle's books, I think, would be very good to look at the various forms of nonlinear risk profiles of options and its Greeks in graphical representations, a lot of them, purposely. Just 2 cents!