Intraday setup for Index derivatives trading - ORB + Pivot Points

Again not my setup. Read about it in Andrew Aziz's book . Modified it a little to suit intraday option selling. Have been working very well so far especially in BNF.

Use 5 mins chart in Nifty and BNF spot. Add Central pivot range, Pivot Points standard on to the chart (Available in Zerodha)

Basically, we are looking for days when Nifty or BNF trend (either up or down)

2/
Mark previous day high and low on the chart. Wait till 9.30 am.

Case 1: Upside Breakout. If a 5 mins candle closes above Previous day high and pivot point (R1 or R2), go long (Futures, Option buy or sell whatever suits)
Case 2: Downside Breakout. If a 5 mins candle closes below Previous day low and pivot point (S1 or S2), go short (Futures, Option buy or sell whatever suits)

Keep the SL below/above the breakout/breakdown candle and trail the SL for target
You would get these setups 7-8 times on index in a month. Success rate would be 40-50%. But the risk reward is very good ranging from 1:3 to 1:5 as well
Here are some examples to make it clear:

Yesterday, only day low broken, S1 pivot broken and trade activated. Keep trailing the SL
Pretty similar. 9.35 candle breaks the PDH and R1. And good to go
Finally, the use of CPR. It is just indicative. If CPR is narrow, then probability of a good trend increases (not sure shot though). Just like below:
SLs would be part of the game. Actually there would be more SLs in this setup as its a trend following game. Start practicing by looking at charts.
Option sellers selling OTMs would be at an extra advantage here compared to those using option buying and futures buying/selling because of time decay. That's why I like using this even more for intraday option selling.
Next setup tomorrow I hope :P No retweets or likes needed.

More from Screeners

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?