If two different positions have the same P&L graph, they are equivalent to (synthetics of) each other. So yes, they have "common names"; if you look through the first set of put-call parity formulas I listed, they're all simple positions. E.g. S = C - P || Stock is synthetically identical to a long call and a short put (a combo.) Therefore... P + S = C || Long put plus long stock is synth-eq to a long call; C - S = P || Long call and short stock = long put; -P - S = -C || Short put and short stock = short call, and... -C + S = -P || Short call and long stock = short put. (Oh, yeah: stock/option positions - married put, covered call, and whatever their inverses are called... not that the names actually matter. Hopefully, that idea is starting to penetrate.) The decomposition of more complex option strategies is trivial and left up to the student. As to "pizzazz", or porcine cosmetics... Making such self-assured pronouncements when you clearly don't understand anything about it is... suboptimal. At least if you actually want to learn something. Being aware of the synthetic positions for whatever you're holding is very useful for a number of reasons - e.g., exiting with a smaller spread, getting more favorable fills, and possible adjustments/basis reduction when the price moves either with or against you. It's made a small but definite difference in my trading, and will make even more of one once I'm fully conversant with it (which will take quite a while yet.)