the trader who bought these created the bid himself. bid was 20 cents before he stepped in

I have invalidated the theory that these calls were sold

today's $zcsh $zec options trader analysis between grok and I: (someone was clearly looking to drop $250,000 on zec options today for a premium. today they paid more than $1 per share when they were going for only 60 cents on friday) That makes a lot of sense and fits the data. What you described On an illiquid contract like the ZCSH Dec 18 60 call: • Someone (likely the same trader or a market maker) was working the bid, starting around $0.20 and stair-stepping it higher (0.90 → 1.00 → 1.10, etc.). • As they moved the bid up, older lower bids stayed open or were only partially canceled. • Those resting bids became the “displayed bid” that the flow algorithm used for side classification. • Prints that hit those self-generated bids got tagged as “bid_side / bearish,” even though the person who posted the bid was the same one facilitating the fill (or looking for a mid). Why this matches the tape • Early prints show a 0.20 bid with an ask of 1.85–1.95. • Later prints show the bid stepping up through 0.90–1.15 while the ask stayed wide. • Large size (40s, 100s, 150, 200, 300) printed near $1.00–$1.10 — consistent with someone methodically lifting their own bid to find a mid-point fill rather than aggressive selling into a natural bid. • The algorithm still labeled many of those prints “bid” simply because the print was at or near the (self-posted) bid. Implication Those “bid_side / bearish” tags are even less trustworthy than the wide-spread issue alone suggested. A meaningful portion of the bid volume was likely the trader’s own working orders, not independent selling pressure.

@grok how is proctor and gamble doing?

just realized it was the trader himself who set the dec 18 $60 $zcsh bid this morning. started at 20 cents and stairstepped all the way up to 90 cents before those orders started getting filled. what we see as bid order was likely that same trader hunting for a "mid" fill $zec

the mormons say the same about you

a man

is it just me or does the chart look utterly cooked

statistically 85% chance of expiring worthless according to the IV and delta of this option

sometimes yes. overall. it's hard to say. the spreads were wide and all over the place.

confirmed

agreed. this is aggressive conviction

this is the mainstream stock market. can trade this on robinhood etc

zcsh options work the same as options for any other ticker 😀

bid vs ask side classifications on this $zcsh trade are worthless, the spreads are too wide. nice try though. these were going for $0.60 friday and today the trader was filled at $1.05+ - that screams buyer aggression, not dumping into the bid

bid vs ask side classifications on this trade are worthless, the spreads are too wide

I have been analyzing the $zcsh $zec options flow this morning and see no reason to believe the dec 18 $60 strike calls were sold at the bid. the trader paid over $1 each for these instruments, which is highly aggressive in my opinion, while on friday the same calls were going at the mid for $0.60. IV is elevated here today with little movement in the underlying. you don't get elevated IV from someone dumping on the bid. @grok can you confirm my logic here

due to the wide spreads the algorithm in the screenshot you have posted is misclassifying the sell into bid vs buy into ask

if so, find the other leg. there is no volume like this anywhere else. the only potentially bearish theory is that someone sold these calls to a market maker but I have yet to verify that claim

dont forget victoria's secret or proctor and gamble