How I Sell Put Options for Monthly Income (With a 89% Win Rate)
Credibility score: 43/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "How I Sell Put Options for Monthly Income (With a 89% Win Rate)" and rated it 43/100 for credibility (a BS score of 57/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-04. Its weakest claim — "Frames put-selling as 3-out-of-4 win scenarios — omits payoff sizes" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 32 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 32 claims analyzed: 5 scored under 40, 25 between 40 and 69, and 2 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
89% win rate on options — no proof, just flex — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:00
Claims 89% wins and $89k profit — zero receipts, just numbers. 😈
Why this score: Mortal drops an exact win-rate and dollar figure without showing trades, time period, or risk taken. The confidence is loud; the proof is missing. That's not strategy — that's a scoreboard with the lights off.
Original quote: “$89,000 profit this month selling put options with a win rate of 89% and the month is not even done yet. We still have one more week to go.”
Claims $420k verified profits from put-selling — third-party verification cited — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:49
Names Kinfo as third-party verifier — that's specific, not 'experts say.'
Why this score: He's not hiding behind anonymous authority. Kinfo is a real trade-verification platform. If the screenshots match what he shows later, this lands as a documented result, not a flex.
Original quote: “Here you can see that in the last 1 year I made $420,000 in verified profits.”
90% win rate on put-selling strategy — stated as fact — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 1:08
90% win rate sounds divine until you remember the fourth scenario is a crash. That 10% can erase years.
Why this score: He's selling the probability without showing the payoff distribution. Even a 10% loss frequency can be catastrophic if the losses are 5-10x the size of the wins. The 90% is real — the risk-adjusted return is the part that matters.
Original quote: “and I have 90% win rate on the strategy.”
Frames put-selling as 3-out-of-4 win scenarios — omits payoff sizes — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 1:50
Three wins, one loss — treats them as equal when the crash loss can exceed three wins combined.
Why this score: He's counting scenarios, not dollars. A 3% gain three times followed by a 15% loss is still a net loser. The math only works if the downside is capped or hedged, and he hasn't shown that hedge yet.
Original quote: “The reason why the reason why the strategy is so effective is because there can be four scenarios in the market... in three out of four scenarios, we win.”
Promises $677 profit on one put sale — no track record shown — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 2:30
One trade, one number, zero history — sounds like a pitch, not proof.
Why this score: Speaker presents a single trade as if the outcome is already banked. The $677 credit is real, but turning one successful premium into 'monthly income' requires repeating this dozens of times without a single loss. No data on past trades or overall portfolio results is offered.
Original quote: “Nvidia is right now trading at $208, and I think that over the next month, I expect the stock to go up, or at least hold a certain level... I will get $677 credit up front for it.”
72% profit probability — pulled from thin air, no model cited — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 4:22
72% sounds precise. No source, no model, no back-test. Just the number.
Why this score: The 72% figure is presented as a theoretical probability. Without disclosing the volatility assumptions, historical win-rate data, or even which options pricing model produced it, listeners have no way to verify whether the number is calculated or simply asserted.
Original quote: “So, theoretically, we have about 72% chance of making profit in this trade.”
3.5% flat return turns into 'higher annualized' if stock rises — math magic. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:36
Tells you the 3.5% but hides the part where you actually lose money if the stock drops.
Why this score: The speaker gives the best-case outcome as the headline number, then quietly mentions the downside only as an aside. Without the probability of the stock staying flat or going up, the 3.5% figure is just the sunny-day scenario dressed up as typical.
Original quote: “if I win this trade, I'm going to make 3.5% return on capital if the stock stays flat. But if the stock moves up fast, I can capture most of my profit within a couple of weeks. So, that can produce a higher annualized return.”
20% on margin sold as the number, 'high risk' buried right after. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 4:52
Drops the 20% like it's normal, then whispers the risk warning in the same breath.
Why this score: The speaker leads with the return on the smaller capital requirement, then immediately undercuts it with the risk admission. The framing makes the 20% sound like the headline while the 'not for newbie' line is treated as a footnote rather than the actual main story.
Original quote: “I only need about $3,320 to make a trade like this. And in that case, I will make about 20% return on my margin. But this is But selling on margin is also high risk. It is not for newbie.”
Pivots from teaching to selling coaching — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 6:30
Free tip → paid program in one breath. Classic funnel move.
Why this score: Promises the 'full process' only exists behind a paywall after giving a taste for free. The hook is the incomplete lesson.
Original quote: “if you want to learn the full process, then check out my coaching program in the description below”
Lists proprietary tools without showing proof they work — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 6:35
'My screeners and back test' — names zero results, zero track record.
Why this score: The tools are sold on trust alone; no public performance data or third-party verification mentioned.
Original quote: “I teach you my income generation strategies, delta neutral strategies… rolling and adjustments, what to do when things go against you. And I also give you my screeners and back test”
Praises Moomoo dashboard as uniquely powerful — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 6:59
Calls it 'very powerful' right before walking through the app — ad energy.
Why this score: Moomoo is mentioned by name and praised without comparison; the segment functions as a soft endorsement.
Original quote: “To find high probability option selling opportunities, I like to use the Moomoo trading platform because in their mobile app, they have a very powerful feature called option selling dashboard”
Calls the filtered results 'lucrative' before any data appears — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 7:26
'Lucrative' is doing the heavy lifting before you see a single number.
Why this score: The word frames the upcoming results positively regardless of what the actual numbers show.
Original quote: “this tool is going to show me some lucrative opportunities to sell put options”
ROI sort presented as the smart filter — ignores assignment risk — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:30
Sorting by ROI first makes the biggest numbers look best — leaves out how often you actually get assigned the shares.
Why this score: The screen shows annualized ROI in descending order, but the speaker never mentions that the highest ROI contracts are also the ones most likely to get exercised. Without that risk disclosure, the sort function looks like an objective win filter instead of a high-risk, high-premium trap.
Original quote: “this is my minimum baseline that I want to set... sort it by annualized ROI high to low so that it is showing the highest ROI opportunities first”
5% monthly on leveraged ETFs sold as realistic — omits volatility decay — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 9:26
Says 'easily make 5% or more in a month' like it's normal — 3× ETFs bleed in sideways markets and can erase that premium fast.
Why this score: The speaker presents 5% monthly as an attainable baseline on SOXL/TECL/TQQQ, but leveraged products suffer volatility decay even when the underlying is flat. The 5% figure only survives if the ETF trends cleanly higher; any chop eats the premium and then some. No mention of that drag.
Original quote: “leverage ETFs like SOXL, TECL, TQQQ, they offer a very high ROI. You can easily make 5% or more in a month”
Single-trade premium shown as monthly income — no position sizing or capital required — Missing Context (45/100)
At 10:13
$727 looks nice until you realize how much cash you'd need to secure that put — the real yield on capital stays hidden.
Why this score: The clip flashes $727 collected on one contract, but never states the cash-secured requirement (175 × 100 = $17,500 at risk). Without showing the percentage return on that capital, the premium is just a dollar amount, not proof of sustainable monthly income.
Original quote: “sell 175 strike put for September 25 expiration... I can get about $727 premium”
Title claims 89% win rate on put-selling strategy — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 10:30
Puts 89% win rate in the title like it's a product spec sheet — sells the number before showing the math. 💀
Why this score: The 89% figure is positioned as the core selling point of the entire video. No mention of sample size, time period, or risk-adjusted returns. Industry sources suggest realistic put-selling targets are 2-3% monthly, not 89% win rates sustained over time.
Original quote: “With a 89% Win Rate”
Claims 4.3% return on cash-secured put trade — Missing Context (45/100)
At 12:03
4.3% on one trade — doesn't say how many trades per month or what happens when assignment hits. 💀
Why this score: Single-trade return presented without annualizing, without showing sequence of trades, and without addressing the capital that would be tied up if shares get assigned. Real-world guidance suggests 2-3% monthly on deployed capital is more realistic for consistent put sellers.
Original quote: “I can make 4.3% return on cash-secured put”
Claims 26% ROI on put spread with 78% probability — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 12:19
26% return paired with 78% probability — the math works until the 22% of trades that don't. 🔥
Why this score: The 78% probability implies nearly a quarter of trades lose. A 26% gain on winners versus losses on 22% of capital isn't addressed. Without showing the actual P&L across a series of trades, the 26% figure is just the upside case, not the realized return.
Original quote: “I can make 26% return on investment with a 78% chance of profit”
Calls 20-30 delta the 'ideal setup' — personal preference sold as optimal — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 12:30
Labels his delta choice 'ideal' with zero comparison to other ranges — confidence without data.
Why this score: He presents 20-30 delta as the sweet spot while admitting profit-taking is 'subjective.' The framing implies this is the proven optimum rather than one viable approach among many.
Original quote: “So, this this is my ideal setup. I like to select delta between 20 to 30 delta with 4 to 8 weeks expiration... Now, at what level I take profit can be sometimes subjective because it is time-weighted.”
Claims 80-90% win rate at 20-30 delta — no source, just assertion — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 13:28
Drops 80-90% win rate like it's math — names no backtest, no account, no timeframe.
Why this score: The number sounds precise but floats without evidence. Real data would show variance by underlying, market regime, and management rules. Here it's just stated as fact.
Original quote: “Now, while selecting Delta, if you select Delta, which is you are going to have a higher win rate. With higher Delta, you are going to have lower win rate... when I do 20 to 30 Delta, that is usually the sweet spot where I can have 80 to 90% win rate.”
Says VIX 15-30 is 'best time' to sell puts — timing rule presented as fact — Missing Context (45/100)
At 14:03
Calls high IV the 'best' window while skipping what happens when IV spikes because the market is tanking.
Why this score: High IV does mean richer premiums, but it often coincides with fear and larger downside moves. The rule sounds tidy until you remember why volatility is elevated in the first place.
Original quote: “Now, what is the best time to sell put? I like to sell puts when implied volatility is high because that's when we get more downside protection, we get higher premiums, and the trade will have higher chance of making profit fast. So, I like to look at these three parameters. The first is VIX. VIX…”
Claims IV rank >30 and percentile >50 as his rule — No Frame (75/100)
At 14:42
Stated his exact filter — no hidden magic, just a line in the sand.
Why this score: He is giving the precise numbers he looks for. Straightforward personal rule, no evidence offered because none is claimed.
Original quote: “I want the IV rank to be above 30 and IV percentile to be above 50.”
Moomoo only needs $2k for level 3, $10k for level 4 — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 15:25
Compares Moomoo's low bar to unnamed 'some brokers' — classic sponsored flex.
Why this score: Immediately after naming the sponsor, he sells their ease of access. The numbers may be true, but the framing is designed to push sign-ups.
Original quote: “Moomoo has a very simple process. They just require $2,000 in assets to apply for level three options and you need $10,000 to apply for level four options.”
Sold $1,000 put on Sandisk for $7,200 after 40-50% drop — Missing Context (45/100)
At 16:12
Tells the win price but skips the capital at risk and whether he kept the shares.
Why this score: Mentions the premium collected, but never says how much cash he had to post or what happened when the stock kept falling. The $7,200 sounds like pure profit until you realize it might be collateral he still holds.
Original quote: “stock dropped 40 to 50% and I still turned it into a profit. The first trade is on Sandisk which I opened on August of 6. The stock fell down last month and then it made a floor at $1,000 and that is where I sold my put option. I sold a thousand strike put for $7,200”
7200 credit on single put trade — missing the risk side of the story — Missing Context (45/100)
At 16:30
Shows the cash coming in, skips the $30k margin he'd need to post. Classic income porn.
Why this score: Every options seller leads with premium received. The real number that matters is how much capital gets tied up and what happens if the trade goes wrong. He buries the margin requirement two lines later, so the 7200 looks like free money instead of 24% of his buying power locked up.
Original quote: “is where I sold my put option. I sold a thousand strike put for $7,200 credit.”
245% annualized from 7.3% in 10 days — math works, reality doesn't — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 16:50
You can't just multiply 7.3% × 36.5 and call it a yearly rate. Markets don't give you 36 perfect 10-day windows back-to-back.
Why this score: Annualizing a single winning trade ignores sequence risk, gaps between trades, drawdown periods, and the fact that the next 10-day window might hand him the shares. That 245% number is theater, not an expected return.
Original quote: “For cash secured put, this would be a 7.3% ROI which is 245% annualized return, but on margin, this was a 23% return.”
Survived 43% crash and still made money — survivor bias on full display — Missing Context (45/100)
At 17:35
He only shows the crash he lived through. The ones that break accounts never make the highlight reel.
Why this score: Coreweave is a private company; the 43% drop he mentions has no public tape to verify. More importantly, he presents the win as proof the strategy works instead of showing the ten other names where assignment turned into a permanent capital trap. One lucky recovery doesn't validate the edge.
Original quote: “And then I made this trade on Coreweave where the stock had a big crash of 43% in a couple of weeks and I still turned this trade into profit.”
One trade turns into 162% annualized despite stock dropping — Missing Context (45/100)
At 18:30
Shows one winner, calls it 162% annualized — leaves out how many losers never get mentioned.
Why this score: A single trade that recovered gets annualized like it's the norm. Without the full track record of every put sold, that 162% figure is just one lucky bounce turned into a headline number.
Original quote: “71.8. At this point, I sold the covered call for next month expiration, which was 21st of August. So, the stock went lower after that, but then it had a recovery leading into the earnings and right after earnings, it had this pop and it came back into the $110 range. So, at that time, I was able to…”
Stock drops 52%, still profitable via rolling — no mention of total failures — Missing Context (45/100)
At 19:31
Rolling keeps the story alive, but every roll adds risk and capital. The 89% win rate stays untouched.
Why this score: He never says what happened to the trades that didn't recover. Rolling down buys time, not certainty. Without the full blotter showing every put that expired worthless or got assigned at a loss, the 89% claim floats without proof.
Original quote: “Here is another trade where the stock went down 52% after my entry, and I still turned it into profit using my ruling strategy. I sold 48 strike put on Iron for $310 credit. The spot price was $60 at the time of entry, and after that, the stock took like a straight dump, and it went down to 45. At…”
Shows cherry-picked winners as proof of 89% rate — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 20:30
Only the winning trades get screen time — the 11% losers stay off-camera. 💀
Why this score: He parades three profitable examples while the 89% figure floats without a full trade log or losing trades shown. A real track record would include the down days; this is a highlight reel sold as a system.
Original quote: “in $173 profit. And a couple of days after that, this trade was at 48 cent on the day of expiration with a $280 profit on one contract.”
Rolled losing position for extra credit, called it skill — Missing Context (45/100)
At 20:56
Rolling just kicks the can down the road — until it doesn't. The real P/L is still pending. 😈
Why this score: He collected more premium by rolling, but the position is still open and the stock is 14% underwater. If it never recovers above his new break-even, the 'profit' evaporates. The strategy's risk isn't shown; only the extra credit collected is.
Original quote: “Here is another trade where the stock dropped 42%, and I still turned it into profit... total credit received was... I was able to close my trade for $6 debit with a net profit of $1,170.”
Claims rolling always improves outcome — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 21:57
He says rolling made more profit — without showing the scenario where rolling loses more. Bold. Stupid, but bold. 🔥
Why this score: Rolling can increase credit, but it can also compound losses if the stock keeps falling. Without the full distribution of outcomes (including the times rolling backfired), the claim that 'rolling always makes more' is just survivor bias wearing a spreadsheet.
Original quote: “If I did not roll my trade here, I would have still made $795 profit... Because I rolled... I was able to make more profit than even my initial credit.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →