Mostly no, at least as packaged for retail. Unusual options activity can carry signal, but most feeds misread hedges, spreads, and rolls as directional bets, so the raw alerts are closer to noise than edge. Reliability depends entirely on who reads the print, the context they apply, and whether their record is public.
The honest answer: usually noise, sometimes signal
Unusual options activity is one of the most oversold ideas in retail trading. The pitch is seductive: smart money is making a big bet, the scanner caught it, follow the print. The reality on a desk is duller. Most of what lights up a flow scanner is not a directional bet at all. It is hedging, market making, and structured positions that happen to be large. The size is real. The story attached to it usually is not.
That does not mean flow is useless. Read correctly, in context, it is one of the better windows into how the market is actually positioned. But the gap between raw alerts and usable information is enormous, and almost everything sold to retail lives on the wrong side of that gap.
Why most unusual options activity is a false positive
The core problem is that a single print, stripped of context, is ambiguous. The same block of calls can mean four completely different things depending on what sits around it. A scanner shows you the headline. It almost never shows you the structure, and the structure is where the meaning lives.
| What the scanner flags | What it often actually is |
|---|---|
| A large block of calls bought | One leg of a call spread, with far smaller net risk |
| A sudden surge of put buying | A hedge against a long stock position, not a bearish view |
| Heavy near-dated volume | Systematic and dealer hedging flow, not conviction |
| A repeated print at one strike | A roll of an existing position into a new expiry |
Read down that right-hand column and the problem is obvious. Hedges, spreads, and rolls dominate real flow, and every one of them can trip a scanner that only watches size and aggression. When a feed presents these as directional bets, it is not lying so much as guessing, and selling the guess as a signal.
What actually separates signal from noise
Turning a print into information takes a handful of questions that no headline number can answer. Was the trade bought to open or sold to open. Is it paired with stock, which would make it a hedge rather than a bet. Where does it sit on the volatility surface, and is the buyer paying up or getting filled cheap. And critically, does it fit the broader dealer-positioning picture, or does it cut against it. A print that lines up with where dealers are short gamma is a different animal from one that does not.
This is the work, and it is why reliability is a property of the reader, not the feed. Two people can look at the identical print and reach opposite conclusions, and only one of them is accounting for structure. The scanner is a starting point. The interpretation is the entire edge, and it is precisely the part that does not fit in an alert.
A scanner can tell you a big trade printed. It cannot tell you whether someone is betting, hedging, or rolling. The size is the headline; the structure is the story, and the structure is what almost every feed throws away. Justin Katz, @Bluedeerc
Engagement-driven alerts versus a desk read
There is a whole category of product built to make flow feel like a signal: real-time alert feeds and screenshot-driven posts that surface the biggest, splashiest prints because big and splashy gets clicks. The incentive is engagement, not accuracy. A feed optimized for attention will always favor the dramatic print over the correct read, because the dramatic print is what spreads. None of that is calibrated to whether the trade was directional, and none of it is held to a record you can check afterward.
A desk read works the other way around. It starts from how the market is positioned, dealer-positioning and fixed-strike-volatility models, and treats individual prints as one input into that picture rather than the conclusion. The difference is not the data. Both sides can see the same tape. The difference is whether someone is paid to interpret it honestly or paid to make it look exciting.
How to vet any flow-based service
- Ask whether prints are interpreted with structure, or just flagged for being large.
- Look for a public, timestamped record posted before outcomes, not a reel of winners.
- Check whether the read references positioning and volatility, or only raw size.
- Be skeptical of any feed whose business model rewards drama over accuracy.
The Equidamus record is built in public on X as @Bluedeerc since 2019, by a desk veteran with roughly ten years across two funds and a prop firm. Every call is posted in real time, before the result, with per-contract math any reader can replicate. Flow is read through dealer positioning, not flagged by a scanner. That is the line between something reliable and something that merely looks like it.
By the numbers
- 0DTE options now account for roughly half of total daily S&P 500 options volume, a large share of it systematic and hedging flow rather than directional bets . (source)
- The OCC cleared a record of more than 12 billion options contracts in 2024, a scale at which most volume is institutional hedging and market making, not retail conviction . (source)
- A landmark study of retail day traders found that about 97% lost money over time, which is why blindly mirroring flagged options prints is closer to gambling than edge . (source)
Frequently asked questions
- Is unusual options activity a reliable trading signal?
- Mostly not, at least the way it is sold to retail. A scanner can flag a large or odd-sized print, but the print alone cannot tell you whether it is a hedge, a spread leg, a roll, or a directional bet. Without that context the alert is noise. Reliability comes from interpretation and a public record, not the raw feed.
- Why do most unusual options activity alerts fail?
- Because they strip context. A large block is often one leg of a spread or a hedge against stock, not a bullish bet. Roughly half of S&P 500 options volume is now 0DTE, much of it systematic and hedging-driven (https://www.cboe.com/insights/), so a big print is frequently not a conviction directional trade at all.
- How do you separate signal from noise in options flow?
- You read the full structure, not the headline size: was it bought to open or sold, is it paired with stock, where does it sit on the volatility surface, and does it fit current dealer positioning. Context turns a print into information. Without it, you are guessing in expensive ways.
- How is Equidamus Markets different from a UOA alert feed?
- Every entry and exit is posted publicly on X as @Bluedeerc since 2019, before the outcome, with per-contract math anyone can replicate. The read is built on dealer-positioning and fixed-strike-volatility models, not a scanner flagging large prints. You audit the record rather than trust a feed.