Price forming an orderly pullback contained by a down trend line (DTL). You want to see low volume within that wedge formation, with small down swings ideally.
This thread is about the technical setups I use day in/out to trade the markets 📒
1⃣Wedge break (WB)
2⃣Wedge break pullback (WBPB)
3⃣Breakout Retest short (BORS)
4⃣Breakout Retest Long (BORL)
5⃣Breakout 10ema PB (BO10PB)
6⃣Breakout 21ema PB (BO21PB)
That's my playbook 👇
Price forming an orderly pullback contained by a down trend line (DTL). You want to see low volume within that wedge formation, with small down swings ideally.
• DTL breakout ideally on higher than avrg. volume, OR
• PIVOT breakout daily high, OR
• Intraday PIVOT breakout H1 high
Stop Loss:
• Low Of Day (LOD), OR
• Recent swing low
After the WB, you often have a retest of the DTL, we then find support and follow through on the upside.
• PIVOT breakout ideally on higher than avrg. volume, OR
• PIVOT breakout daily high, OR
• Intraday PIVOT breakout H1 high
Stop Loss:
• Low Of Day (LOD), OR
• Recent swing low
After a base breakout, the BORS setup takes place when price comes back testing the BO pivot within a short period only.
• PIVOT breakout ideally on higher than avrg. volume, OR
• PIVOT breakout daily high, OR
• Intraday PIVOT breakout H1 high
Stop Loss:
• Low Of Day (LOD), OR
• Recent swing low
Sometimes we breakout with a lot of strength, but we pullback during a couple weeks back to the BO level in a wedge pattern.
You want to see low volume within that wedge formation, with small down swings ideally.
• DTL breakout ideally on higher than avrg. volume, OR
• PIVOT breakout daily high, OR
• Intraday PIVOT breakout H1 high
Stop Loss:
• Low Of Day (LOD), OR
• Recent swing low
When the b/o is powerful & buying pressure is sustained, we don't always get a breakout level retest. In that case we might only get a pullback to the 10dma. You want to wait for that lower risk entry to form, specially if you missed the initial b/o
• DTL breakout ideally on higher than avrg. volume, OR
• DTL breakout daily high (NEX=6.69$), OR
• Intraday DTL breakout H1 high, OR
• B/O swing high PIVOT b/o daily high, OR
• B/O swing high PIVOT b/o H1 high
Stop Loss:
• Low Of Day (LOD), OR
• Recent swing low
When the b/o is powerful & buying pressure is sustained, we don't always get a breakout level retest. In that case we might only get a pullback to the 21dma. You want to wait for that lower risk entry to form, specially if you missed the initial b/o
• DTL breakout ideally on higher than avrg. volume, OR
• DTL breakout daily high (DOCN=82.78$), OR
• Intraday DTL breakout H1 high, OR
• B/O swing high PIVOT b/o daily high, OR
• B/O swing high PIVOT b/o H1 high
Stop Loss:
• Low Of Day (LOD), OR
• Recent swing low
Every DAY I help new traders:
• A daily Market update & Focuslist Newsletter (Substack)
• A private Discord channel where you can learn live from me
Join over 1,200 traders taking their skills to the next level:
https://t.co/jg3QBEYkyG
More from All
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
