Better to learn how the market works with $2,000 than $100,000.

Absolutely true, but that's the wrong question. How likely is it that your $500 turns into $13,000 than that it turns into zero?

Options pay when the market does things that the people selling the options think it won't. Why are you smarter/more knowledgable than they are? If your answer is that you've heard stories or read a book, you're not.

If I were you, I'd just simulate it on paper for a while. If you're consistently turning $500 into $13,000, by all means go get rich. If on the other hand, you're consistently turning $2,000 into $0, pick another way to make money.

I don't think the markets are 100% efficient (it's fairly obvious that they aren't; at least on some time-scales), but I do think that they might as well be for 99.999999%+ of people and find it really sad that there is a whole industry built around conning these people into believing that they have any real chance of succeeding.

As for the OP's original question (and assuming it's genuine and not just some sneaky scotttrade stealth-spam post), then the very fact that he doesn't know how to answer his own question puts him firmly in the 99.999999%+ of the people who've no chance IMO:

1) What is my edge?
2) What fees will my broker charge for a "bet-size" of X, Y, Z, ...?
3) Plug the numbers into (or better yet, re-arrange) the Kelly Criterion formula and find the minimum required starting capital.
.
.
.
X) Exponential growth until you hit market capacity.

Juk

Too many 9s on your percentage, but I agree completely. If you have to come here asking you're not going to beat the market let alone market + fees.

comes pretty much as:

a) assume markets are weak efficient
b) assume there are situations/factors that give inefficiency edge
c) find those factors and the best execution on that edge
d) correct for overoptimization
e) half-kelly

$1