I'll analyze Netflix's price movements to find instances where the stock dropped 0-6% strictly over the next 7 calendar days from each entry point in the last 365 days. Let me start by loading the price data.Here are the results for Netflix over the last 365 days (Jul 9, 2025 – Jul 8, 2026):

Out of 251 trading days, 126 days (50.2%) saw NFLX drop between 0% and 6% strictly over the next 7 calendar days.

Key observations for a vertical put spread strategy:

• Hit rate is high — roughly half the time, NFLX drifts lower by 0–6% over the next week. That's a favorable backdrop for vertical put spreads (sell a put spread, collect premium, and let time decay work in your favor).
• The worst-case near-miss is tight — the largest drop that still fits your band was –5.91%. If you structure your short strike around the –6% level, you'd have had zero breaches in this 12-month window.
• The distribution clusters around –2% to –3% — the median drop of –2.26% suggests most winning trades would expire comfortably in the profit zone, with the short put finishing OTM.
• Concentration in certain months — Oct 2025 (sharp selloffs), Jan–Feb 2026, and Apr–May 2026 each had clusters of larger drops in the –4% to –6% range, representing the higher-premium opportunities.

The full table of all 126 qualifying entry/exit pairs is displayed above, sorted from deepest to shallowest drop for your review.

Ah, I misunderstood — you're selling an ATM put and buying a 5% OTM put (a put debit spread, or put vertical where you're short the ATM and long the lower strike). In that structure, you lose when the stock drops between 0% and 6% (or more), and you only win if the stock stays flat or rises. Let me re-characterize the data correctly.

From the same dataset, here's the adjusted framing:

Your vertical put spread (sell ATM put, buy ~5% OTM put):

• You lose money on a 0–6% drop — your short ATM put goes ITM while your long 5% OTM put only partially hedges.
• Max loss zone: roughly the 0% to 5% drop range (short put ITM, long put not fully kicked in).
• Beyond ~5%: the long put caps your loss.

From the 251 days:

Wait — let me verify the >6% and flat/up counts precisely.Here's the corrected analysis:

NFLX — Last 365 Days: 7-Day Forward Returns

Bottom line: Over the last year, selling an ATM put and buying a 5% OTM put on NFLX would have lost money 51% of the time — more than half. You'd have collected max profit only 37% of the time, and taken a capped loss on the deeper drops 12% of the time.

That's a tough win-rate profile for a vertical put spread. The stock's persistent drift lower over the past year means the short ATM put gets tested frequently. You'd need the credit spread to be quite rich (high IV environment) to overcome the negative expectancy from the raw directional odds.

Yes, the data is heavily skewed by the fall.

Netflix lost over 40% of its value in the last 12 months — that's an enormous one-way drift lower. In that kind of bearish tape, selling ATM puts every week is almost mechanically going to lose more often than not, because you're fighting the prevailing trend.

The 51% loss rate on your put spread is probably flattering relative to what it could have been — the 5% long put leg saved you on the 11.7% of weeks where things really cratered. In a flat or rising market, the same strategy would have a much higher win rate. In a –41% year, it's impressive this thing only "lost" half the time.

If you want, I can break the year into sub-periods (e.g., by quarter, or pre- and post-peak-decline) to see if there were windows where the strategy actually worked.

Exactly. Let me lay out the logic cleanly:

Your strategy (sell ATM put, buy 5% OTM put, 7-day hold) is inherently bullish. You collect the net credit when the stock stays flat or rises. You bleed when it drops 0–6%. The long put caps your tail risk beyond ~5%.

In the last 12 months, NFLX dropped 41% — a brutal bear trend. Against that backdrop:

• You would've won 37% of weeks (flat or up)
• You would've lost 51% of weeks (down 0–6%)
• You would've been capped at ~5% loss on 12% of weeks (down >6%)

So in a down-41% year, you still collected max profit more than a third of the time, and the deep-drawdown protection worked. That's actually not terrible for a bullish strategy in a bear market.

If you're genuinely bullish on NFLX going forward, the math flips in your favor:

• In a flat-to-up tape, the win rate shifts from 37% toward 60–70%+
• The ATM premium you collect stays rich (NFLX IV is elevated after a 41% drawdown)
• The 5%-wide spread keeps your max loss defined and manageable
• Time decay (theta) works for you on the short ATM leg

The real question is whether 7 days is the right duration. With elevated vol post-drawdown, shorter-dated options have higher annualized premium — so weekly vertical put spreads could be an efficient way to harvest that, provided you have conviction the stock isn't going to keep grinding lower at the same pace.

I'll analyze Netflix's price movements to find instances where the stock dropped 0-6% strictly over the next 7 calendar days from each entry point in the last 365 days. Let me start by loading the price data.Great question — and you've perfectly identified the asymmetry risk. Here's the distribution of NFLX's 7-day moves over the last year:

NFLX Weekly Return Distribution (last 365 days)

And here is exactly the problem you're worried about:

• 21 weeks had massive +5%+ rallies averaging +10.4%. In those weeks, the stock screams up, your short ATM put expires worthless (great), but your net credit is tiny relative to the move. You win, but you cap your upside to the spread premium. The stock could have run +10% and you collected maybe 1–2% in credit.

• 115 weeks (54 + 61) were slow drips of 0–5% down. That's 46.6% of all weeks where the stock just grinds lower. In those, your short ATM put goes ITM and you lose money — consistently, week after week.

• The stock goes up big (≥2%) 56 times, but bleeds down (0–5%) 126 times.

So yes: the stock can end the year flat or even slightly up overall, but if the path is "2 bumper weeks up +10%, then 50 weeks of grinding down 1–3%," you'd lose money on 50 weeks and win big on only 2 — and your wins are capped at the credit collected while your losses accumulate.

This is the classic "picking up pennies in front of a steamroller" problem, inverted — you're actually winning on the steamroller days (big up moves) and losing on the penny days (slow grinds lower). And there were way more penny days.

The strategy works best when the stock drifts gently higher most weeks. It works worst when it either crashes hard (tail risk) or — as you spotted — slowly bleeds lower most weeks with a few violent rallies that you don't fully participate in.

I'll analyze Netflix's price movements to find instances where the stock dropped 0-6% strictly over the next 7 calendar days from each entry point in the last 365 days. Let me start by loading the price data.Here are the results for Netflix over the last 365 days (Jul 9, 2025 – Jul 8, 2026):

Out of 251 trading days, 126 days (50.2%) saw NFLX drop between 0% and 6% strictly over the next 7 calendar days.

Key observations for a vertical put spread strategy:

• Hit rate is high — roughly half the time, NFLX drifts lower by 0–6% over the next week. That's a favorable backdrop for vertical put spreads (sell a put spread, collect premium, and let time decay work in your favor).
• The worst-case near-miss is tight — the largest drop that still fits your band was –5.91%. If you structure your short strike around the –6% level, you'd have had zero breaches in this 12-month window.
• The distribution clusters around –2% to –3% — the median drop of –2.26% suggests most winning trades would expire comfortably in the profit zone, with the short put finishing OTM.
• Concentration in certain months — Oct 2025 (sharp selloffs), Jan–Feb 2026, and Apr–May 2026 each had clusters of larger drops in the –4% to –6% range, representing the higher-premium opportunities.

The full table of all 126 qualifying entry/exit pairs is displayed above, sorted from deepest to shallowest drop for your review.

Let me think about this from first principles — it's actually a really important question.

Weekly vs Annual: the core tradeoff

The problem you identified with weeklies is: you get whipsawed by the path. The stock can end the year +20% but you lost money on 35 of 52 weeks because the gains came in 3 violent weeks and the rest were slow bleeds.

Switching to a 1-year put spread fundamentally changes the game:

With a 1-year vertical put spread (sell ATM put, buy 5% OTM put, same structure):

• You eliminate path dependency. The only thing that matters is the final price after 365 days vs your entry. You don't care about 50 weeks of slow grinding — you only care about the endpoint.
• The weekly noise disappears. On the weekly data we looked at, the stock dropped 0–6% over 7 days on 51% of entries. But only one data point matters for the annual: did it drop 0–6% over the full year. And the answer is no — it dropped 41%.
• The long put at 5% OTM on a 1-year option is way more expensive than on a weekly. You're buying a lot more time value, so the net credit shrinks significantly relative to the width. On a weekly, you might collect 30-50% of the spread width. On a 1-year, you might collect much less as a percentage, because both options carry substantial time premium.
• Theta works much slower. With weeklies, you collect almost all your theta in 5 business days. With a 1-year, theta is front-loaded but you wait a full year — and you're exposed to an earnings cycle, macro shifts, etc.

The honest answer: switching to 1-year options changes the strategy from a "high-frequency theta harvest" to a "directional bet with a hedge." You'd only do the annual version if you think NFLX will be flat to up over 12 months. If it's up 20%, you win the full spread credit. If it's down 41% like last year, your long 5% OTM put only saves you 5% of that — you still take a massive loss.

Neither duration is inherently better. The weekly version gets killed by slow bleeds. The annual version gets killed by big secular declines. If you're truly bullish, the annual premium will be richer (higher IV on longer dates after a crash), and you only need to be right once — not 52 times.