Straddling the news with pending orders rarely works as imagined
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2026 6:37 am
Placing buy and sell stops on both sides of price before a release looks smart. Whichever direction breaks, one order should catch the move.
Reality is rougher. Spreads widen before the release, so the orders sit further from the true price. At the release, both orders can trigger within seconds as price whipsaws, leaving a loss on each side. Slippage on pending orders in fast conditions adds more damage.
Some brokers also disable pending orders or widen the minimum stop distance around news, so the setup may not even be possible.
The idea can work occasionally in very specific conditions, such as an event with a one-directional bias and clean follow-through. But the average result tends to be negative after costs, since the cost of both sides is paid in many cases.
Testing with small size over several events shows how often it works. The data usually settles the debate.
Has a news straddle ever been run, and did the results justify the complexity?
Reality is rougher. Spreads widen before the release, so the orders sit further from the true price. At the release, both orders can trigger within seconds as price whipsaws, leaving a loss on each side. Slippage on pending orders in fast conditions adds more damage.
Some brokers also disable pending orders or widen the minimum stop distance around news, so the setup may not even be possible.
The idea can work occasionally in very specific conditions, such as an event with a one-directional bias and clean follow-through. But the average result tends to be negative after costs, since the cost of both sides is paid in many cases.
Testing with small size over several events shows how often it works. The data usually settles the debate.
Has a news straddle ever been run, and did the results justify the complexity?