Okay kiddo, so there is a big bank called Citigroup that some people think might do something important soon. When they see that happening, these people sometimes buy special things called options to bet on what will happen to the bank's stock price. These options are not very common, so when we find 8 of them, it's a big deal! Some people are hoping the bank will go up and some are hoping it will go down, but they all have a guess about how much higher or lower the stock price might go. We also look at how many people are buying and selling these options to see if there is a lot of interest in them. Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that there was a significant or unusual increase in options activity for Citigroup on May 9th, but it does not provide any evidence or data to support this claim. A more accurate title would be "Some Uncommon Options Trades for Citigroup on May 9th".
2. The article relies heavily on the opinion and analysis of Benzinga's options scanner, which is a proprietary tool that may not be transparent or objective in its methodology. There is no mention of how the scanner works, what criteria it uses to identify uncommon trades, or how reliable its data is. This raises doubts about the validity and credibility of the findings.
3. The article fails to provide any context or background information about Citigroup's stock performance, market conditions, or relevant news events that could explain why some investors may have been interested in buying or selling options on May 9th. Without this information, it is impossible for the reader to understand the significance or implications of the trades described in the article.
4. The article presents the overall sentiment of the big-money traders as split between bullish and bearish, but it does not explain how this was determined, what criteria were used to classify the trades as bullish or bearish, or how many trades fall into each category. This makes the statement vague and uninformative.
5. The article reports projected price targets based on trading activity, but it does not explain how these targets were derived, what assumptions were made in calculating them, or how reliable they are as indicators of future stock performance. It also does not provide any comparison or contrast between the price targets and the current market price of Citigroup's stock.
6. The article provides some information about volume and open interest development for call and put options, but it does not explain what these measures mean, how they are calculated, or why they are relevant to the analysis of options trading activity. It also does not provide any historical comparison or trend analysis of these metrics over time.
7. The article ends with a vague statement about the investors aiming for a price territory stretching from $60.0 to $67.5, but it does not explain why this is important, what factors could influence this outcome, or how it relates to the trades described in the article.

Overall, the article is poorly written, lacks substance and clarity, and fails to provide any valuable insights or useful information for the reader who wants to understand the unusual options activity for Citigroup on May 9th.

The overall sentiment of these big-money traders is split between 37% bullish and 37%, bearish.