In my trading this week, I've been putting more emphasis on sitting on my hands right at the open. Before the show starts, I think/re-affirm to myself that I have to determine what kind of trading day it is or what kind of day it's going to be, in order to enter a trade (I've talked about this before) so I can adjust my strategy. This implementation forces me to pay close attention to what's happening, and as a result of being attentive to the action, I become pickier with trades. Also- I don't expect myself to enter a trade right after the open, even if there is an opportunity, because I want to see how the day develops so I can capitalize on a contextually driven trade, compared to a trade that is in the space of time where market conditions are more questionable and uncertain. There is power in patience and engaged analysis. This way of trading makes me feel much more in control, because by establishing what kind of day it's going to be, I deliberately adapt how I approach the market on a technical level. I used to apply the same strategy regardless of the conditions, because I thought I had to be rigidly consistent. I took this a little too far and bypassed my trading common sense, and ignored what price action was telling me (a reversal while holding a position, for example). I feel that I've gained that common sense back, which opens the door to further discretionary trading. This is where I have to be careful.

In my early discretionary trading, I developed some bad habits out of emotional defense. I started closing trades pre-maturely to avoid the pain of loss. I didn't trust my reads of price action, and I became scared to perform. I didn't trust my actions. So, I created a mechanical trade management style (s/l or p/t only). The problem was, I wasn't effectively utilizing real-time market information- I wasn't objective enough in my analysis during a trade, because I was too worried about losing. I didn't know when to get out and couldn't differentiate my perception from market reality, partly because I didn't have much screen time. I'm still not "there", but I'm getting better at it. In terms of doing the right thing on a discretionary level, the only way to be successful in reads is by having the experience of knowing whether a trade is good or bad, and by being clearheaded (obviously you can't get em all right). There's a fine balance between figuring out when to hold your trades longer, and knowing when to get out- and that's an element of trading I'm learning right now. I'm practicing. I know I'm capable of holding trades until I get stopped out- but if I did that every time, I would be throwing money away on reversals. When you're up 10 points and the market reverses 4 points on big and sudden volume, you should probably get out.

As you can see, I'm trying to be adaptable with my trade management without sacrificing bigger gains. This matter could be resolved simply by more trading experience, instead of setting more rules. All I know is- I now prefer to not mess with trades, because of the possibility of a missed opportunity. I'm sure I'll find a balance with more screen time, and if I can approach price action objectively. I'll approach this problem trade-by-trade, and test my ability to understand what's happening in the market over time.

+2.25 points in the MES.

The MES reached the high of the day (2861.25) 7 minutes after the open. When price reached 2861.50, relatively big buyers came in. What followed was multiple buy imbalances- so I entered long. The problem was, I never established higher levels than the high of the day, so I was just in this trade without a profit target in mind. This really effected me. Price ended up going 4 points in my direction, then price stagnated. This gave me the impression that this was a false breakout, and I thought I should probably exit and ride the reversal. Sure enough, price sold off a little bit and that's when I exited with a 2.25 point gain. I established to myself that if price continued to the upside, I would re-enter. I never did. Anyways, here's the trade:



Instead of price completely reversing like I thought it would, it went sideways and held those new highs. During prices consolidation, I realized that volume was low. This is where internal conflict was generated. I didn't like the idea of entering again on low volume, and emotionally, I didn't want to break this current winning streak that I'm on. The trader in me noticed low volume, but also noticed levels being held. Even on a logical level, I was tangled up. I do have experience that markets can trend on low volume, but these are not conditions I would expect to make money in. Ordinarily, when I see a breakout trade, I want to see big one-sided participation- not liquid, infrequent price stepping. So, for me to enter a breakout trade on initial relative strong delta and volume, to see it hesitate a couple points above the prior high, consolidate, then slowly climb prices all the way up to the 2880's, was straining, to say the least. Which brings me to:

In next weeks trading, I'm going to focus on remaining calm during a trade. I believe that if I can keep myself grounded as a trade develops, I'll be able to make the right decisions based on whatever the market is doing. I know I have the ability to hold trades, and I know I can read market sentiment with accuracy. My ability to hold trades trumps my real-time analysis, because holding trades doesn't require anything but to sit on your hands- which I've practiced. Real-time analysis requires a clearhead- and I tend to take every tick too seriously when I'm in a trade. So in next weeks trading, I need to:

- First of all, accept the possibility of loss WHILE trading. This will take pressure off.
- Secondly, give my trade idea the benefit of the doubt. I personally tend to bias myself against my position, and get out too early because of it.
- Then, establish a profit target based on significant levels for the trade.
- Finally, get out when the market is telling me to get out, which means I need to remain calm and objective to analyze price from a place of probabilities.

This balance is crucial. I'll be doing my homework this weekend on the subject.

As for my performance this week, overall, I did great. 7/7 days complete (14.75 points on the week). I followed my process, and did my best to remain objective and adaptable. There were some hang-ups, but that's natural. You can't always not make mistakes. I'm bringing this process into next weeks trading, because I performed relatively well this week compared to the past month. Once I learn to truly remain calm during a trade, I'll be on my way to trading real money. I'm excited for that.

I started trading the MES on 5/7/2019. I will be doing a monthly review of my performance.

MES SIM Trading Review (from 5-7-2019 to 6-7-2019)

The purpose of this work is to get a better understanding of what I need to do to discover edge. I identified the kind of trades I took day-to-day, and noted lapses in discipline and performance. Through this review / through the facts of my trading, I can get a better perspective of where I'm at in my development as a trader, and implement or keep ways of trading that play to my strengths and weaknesses.


Week 1 (5-7 to 5-10):



5-7-2019: Trade 1: Bearish breakout. Exited early because of strong bullish momentum, got out positive. I got frustrated with myself because I didn't hold the trade, so I re-entered short (Trade 2): Price came within 2 ticks of my stop loss, so I closed the trade then and lost the gains and then some. [Trade 3]: Entered long after that bearish failure, and exited the trade early too because of no follow-through. Simplification of this day: Even though I came out break-even, I violated my own trading principles, yet adapted to a reactive market. I don't want to be trading like this.

5-8-2019: Trade 1: Bearish regression. I entered impulsively on an invalidated plan (FOMO, forcing things). This means that I created a scenario, and price action crossed my entry line before I was ready to trade, and I entered anyways. Lost that trade. Trade 2: Bullish breakout- it went ~3 points in my direction, then failed. (This was a very choppy day. I shouldn't have traded.) I followed my rule of not closing trades manually, though.

5-9-2019: Trade 1: Entered too early at 9am on a bearish breakout. Got stopped out in the craziness of the open. Trade 2: Re-attempt of the bearish breakout after the open- but I did so on momentum- not anticipation. I was successful with the second trade. My performance was good, and I followed my rules. Came out on top of the day.

5-10-2019: Trade 1: Bearish continuation. I performed terribly and sold at the bottom, I remember this. I didn't sleep at all the night before and was out of sync. Price action mirrored 5-9's activity, and I acknowledged this, but couldn't take advantage of it. I hesitated on entering the market more than once.

In terms of good and bad days, 5-7-2019 and 5-10-2019 are out of the question in terms of replication. On 5-8-2019, I should've sat on my hands, and on 5-9-2019, I did well because I dared to re-enter a breakout a second time.


Week 2 (5-13 to 5-17):



5-13-2019: Trade 1: Bearish breakout. Entered too early (before 9am again) and got stopped out in the craziness of the open. Trade 2: Bearish breakout re-attempt. It was successful. Note: I performed the same way I did on 5-9-2019. I was rewarded last week for entering a second time, so that's why I did it again on this day. Good trading. At this point, I became aware that I was entering too early on breakout trades.

5-14-2019: Trade 1: Bearish trade on a double top-like pattern. It didn't work out (bad trade in hindsight).. entered before the open. Trade 2: Bullish breakout. I took profits too early because of low volume, and because I wanted to cover the loss I took earlier in the day. I was upset with myself for breaking my rule of never closing manually.

5-15-2019: Trade 1: Bearish breakout trade. I remember this- realistically, price was too erratic for me to be trading at the open. I was trying to time a good entry / get good trade location before the breakout occurred- it never did. Trade 2: Bullish breakout. Price rejected lower prices significantly. This was a good trade, and the price action mirrored the activity from the day before. I did the right thing this time.

The next two days, I traded the MNQ live. On the 16th, I experienced a 6% gain from a bullish breakout trade, and then the next day, I lost 4% attempting breakouts in very tricky conditions. This was a great experience, because I realized that trading live doesn't feel that much different than SIM for me.

This was a great week. With the exception of 5-14-2019, I followed all of my rules and traded breakouts consistently.


Week 3 (5-20 to 5-24):



5-20-2019: Trade 1: Bearish breakout. Stopped out. I was consciously acting on similar set-ups as the week prior because of my success. Trade 2: Bullish breakout. It failed as well. As far as I knew at the time, I did everything that I was supposed to do. Good day in terms of sticking to my rules. Price action was slow.

5-21-2019: Trade: Bullish breakout- it failed. I consciously knew that price was behaving differently (lower volume, too) but I didn't plan on violating my rules anytime soon. I had plenty of chances to get out of the trade, but maintained strong discipline.

5-22-2019: No trades. Good job.

5-23-2019: Trade 1: Bearish breakout. Entered 10 minutes after the open. Price went ~8 points in my favor, then reversed and stopped me out. Trade 2: Bearish breakout re-attempt. This was later on in the day, when I shouldn't have been trading (it was around 12). I got too attached to the idea of price breaking out. I went short on some relatively strong volume. FOMO trade.

5-24-2019: Trade 1: Bullish breakout right at the open. It failed. Trade 2: Bearish breakout-like trade. It was a good trade, but my profit target was 2 points too far away. The trade reversed on me and stopped me out.

I set the goal for myself to hold my trades no matter what, from Monday until Friday. I accomplished this. I acknowledged that conditions were changing, and that volume was lower, but I wanted to test my discipline and consistency- regardless of results. This was a fantastic trading week, because I proved to myself that I can hold trades no matter what, and can stick to a specific process- even while getting my ass kicked.


Week 4 (5-27 to 5-31):



Context: So at the beginning of this week, I applied some information I learned last week. I knew market conditions changed, and I needed to adapt. I established that I was going to practice bracket/range trading this week if the market gave me the opportunity to do so, and didn't make concrete that I would continue holding my trades no matter what. My plan for trading ranges was simple; to responsively trade value area extremes.

5-28-2019: Trade: Responsive bearish trade. I bailed out because of low volume. If I hadn't of done that, I would've hit my profit target. I was upset that I didn't hold the trade. I wasn't confident in these conditions, naturally.

On the 29th, I traded live in the MNQ because I had anticipated big opportunity days prior. Because of my attachment to my hypothesis and because I was greedy, I did foolish things. Trade 1: Bearish breakout overnight trade. Very stupid, got stopped out fast for it being overnight. Trade 2: Open bearish breakout trade. In terms of consistency and execution, this trade was very similar to the successful trades I've taken in the recent past. Trade 3: Bearish regression. It would've been successful had I timed my entry better, or had a wider stop.

5-30-2019: Trade: Went back to trading the way I did last week because conditions seemed right for it, and bought a breakout. It went in my favor by 4 points, and over the course of an hour and a half, it went sideways, reversed and stopped me out. I was proud that I acted the way I did last week, although market conditions weren't right for it.

5-31-2019: Trade 1: Bearish breakout. It failed. Trade 2: Bullish regression. Poor entry, but directionally correct.

I started the week with the intention of bracket trading, but evidently I didn't want to sacrifice trading breakouts. This was conflicting, because part of me wanted to continue trading the way I did last week, because it was comfortable, consistent, and I was being disciplined. This week, however, I didn't know how to approach a given days action and to determine whether or not I should trade breakouts or regressively trade. In hindsight, I definitely should have been more specific and thorough with what my actions would be, and in my goal-setting. Because of this week though, I put more emphasis on sitting on my hands so I could determine what kind of day it's going to be, so I could determine how to trade. I also disconnected with creating hypotheses because I realized I get tunnel vision, and don't trade market reality:


Week 5 (6-3 to 6-7):



The weekend between Week 4 and Week 5, I firmly established that I was going to focus on becoming objective and adaptable in my trading. This meant less planning / not coming up with hypotheses so I could maintain some degree of objectivity, and it meant trading momentum, trading what is.

6-3-2019: Trade 1: POC bearish bounce. Awesome trade. I entered short after some strong bearish momentum without any planning, as planned. After I got in the trade, I went to the hypothesis chart to determine strong levels, particularly for my exit. I identified the closest level and exited when price reached it.

6-4-2019: Trade 1: Bullish continuation. I entered at the wrong time because I was experiencing FOMO / distress. I got stopped out. Trade 2: Got my head together and re-entered the bullish continuation. Rode the trend until the nearest controversial level and exited there.

6-5-2019: Trade: Bullish continuation. The signal wasn't that good for me to enter, but I did. I closed the trade because off erratic and sudden selling. This was the right decision.

6-6-2019: Took the day off. I didn't like what I saw.

6-7-2019: Trade: Bullish breakout. The signal was good, but price stagnated 7 points above the breakout level, then sold off 4 points. This seemed like a bad sign, so I closed the trade. I was kind of upset that I did this because I knew I overreacted, and told myself that I would re-enter the trade if the new highs were held. Because there was low volume, I didn't enter again. Price trended on low volume.

This week, I acted as a momentum trader and I did "good". I practiced sitting on my hands and I practiced deliberately watching price action, so I could make a well-informed trade. As stated previously, I didn't come up with any hypotheses because I realized they interfere with my ability to capitalize on what is really happening in the market. All in all, this whole month was a great experience and a great experiment, and my results lead me to a promising summary of what I should do to grow:

Combine the discipline and consistency in Week 2 and Week 3, with the objectivity and adaptability in Week 5. This means:

- I need to let the market express itself at and some time after the open before taking a trade, to determine how I'm going to trade, or if I am going to at all. I learned in Week 4 the value of not hastily entering at seemingly opportune prices. Really, I need evidence of follow-through and I need to see moderate volume, at least. My default mode as a trader is to sit on my hands and analyze price, and wait for a great opportunity- not to jump in because of FOMO, or because I'm a day trader. I don't need to trade everyday to make money, I just need to make the right decisions, follow my process, and obey my rules.

- Don't close a trade unless price hits an already established take-profit price. Also, use shorter profit targets in general. I'm not looking for giant profits in one sitting, I'm looking for moderate gains over a sustained period of time. This will change as I grow. Note: Since I'm not getting in at pre-determined levels (I'm entering momentum), I'll be using a pre-set point stop loss that fits the technical analysis narrative. There will not be a pre-set point profit target- the profit target will depend on important levels and volume, and once I establish the level I'm getting out at, it's fixed. If I violate this rule, it'll be as if I violated an automatic profit target.

- Minor hypothesis generation pre-open, without setting pre-determined entry and exit prices (I'm going to come up with "price path-ways" using the NT pathway tool in a draw-only chart). Not much time will be spent in the morning coming up with scenarios for the sake of my own objectivity, but I will be aware of the general possibilities of higher time-frames. These hypotheses will come second in a trading hierarchy of value, where momentum is more important. I won't take a scenario/hypothesis trade unless entry opportunities look good in the OrderFlow.

- Put more emphasis on breathing and relaxation before the open, and during trades. I need to make a habit of staying calm as I trade, so I can make solid calls in real-time. This is arguably the most important thing for me to do.


MES SIM (5-7-2019 to 6-7-2019) Sum Performance:

Lost 2 points in the MES today (SIM).



In terms of following my process, I did very well. I went through every step. During my performance, I was way calmer than usual, because I practiced diaphragmatic breathing. It's insanely effective for slowing your heart and mind down. Definitely will be practicing it every morning.

As for this trade, it was OK. Had I waited for the bears to express themselves more, I wouldn't have taken a trade today. The move I tried to take advantage of, was the first major move by the bears since the open. I could've been more yielding, especially in market conditions like this.

I think I'm getting better at trading OrderFlow. I was confident in my read that I was most likely to get stopped out, and I was correct. 20 minutes or so after I closed the trade, I thought, what would a professional trader do in that situation? I think he would've reversed his position half-way through the rejection. That's something I could practice next time I encounter strong absorption like that.

I'm currently reading "Enhancing Trader Performance" by Brett N Steenbarger. Here's a quote:

"..Al kept himself emotionally balanced, taking liberal time away from the screen after setbacks. He honored his stops religiously and didn’t become irate at losses. He consistently expressed optimism over his development and a love of trading.

Mick was anything but balanced, taking losses almost as personal affronts. He periodically violated his risk management guidelines and could not break from the markets until he had rehashed all his mistakes and fumed over each. At such times, he spoke of the market and himself with equal derision.

Most of the trading psychology books you’d read would give the trading edge to Al, the more disciplined, less emotional performer. But Al, the novice, never did succeed at trading. Mick was—and remains—a multimillion-dollar performer. The experience of working with many Micks and Als—and seeing common wisdom about trading success shot down time and again—convinced me to write this book."

Al bought into the narrative and too readily accepted losses. Mick did not.

"When we look at the histories of truly expert performers, we see that they have achieved competence via a different path—not simply through the accumulation of experience. This path has everything to do with why their competence blossoms and the competence of others does not. The developmental psychologist Howard Gardner, who has studied creative achievement in the lives of such luminaries as Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Gandhi, and Freud, observed that—prior to their accomplishments—these talented individuals encountered crystallizing experiences. Those were the equivalent of “Aha!” experiences: emotionally powerful encounters with the fields that they eventually mastered. It wasn’t merely that Einstein or Stravinsky became capable by performing many physics experiments or musical pieces. Rather, something about those fields captured them. They felt a compulsion to pursue the field, not just a desire to engage in it. Competent music students sit at a piano for an hour a day and practice their pieces before getting on with their lives. The budding expert, however, has to be dragged from the piano. The interest, born of that crystallizing experience, is all-consuming."

"It is the combination of effort and talent that defines the competence path of the expert. Winner calls this a “rage to master”: a consuming motivation to extend and express one’s capacities. She cites the case of Jacob, a four-year-old boy who immediately requested a guitar upon hearing heavy metal music. For two years his parents resisted this unusual request, but they finally relented. Jacob refused to leave his first music lesson and spent hours each day practicing the guitar. Winner reports that his parents never had to encourage him to practice; indeed, they had to pry him away from the instrument to do other things. The young Tiger Woods was very similar: His parents had to insist that he fulfill his home and school obligations before picking up the golf clubs. His rage to master the game was so strong that it obliterated the normal distinction between work and play."

"The lesson we can learn from Lance Armstrong is that the competence of expertise is more than skill building. It is the cultivation of a particular kind of relationship between performer and performance field. Lance was always a competitor, and his book makes it clear that one of his great strengths has been to channel his anger and energy competitively. His
greatest competence, however, was resilience, and this stemmed from his ability to define setbacks as challenges. When his market—his health— changed on him, he did not wilt, as Tim had. He took it as a further challenge and defined a goal—and identity—for himself that was great enough to embrace this challenge. “I like the odds stacked against me,” he explained to his riding coach. “ . . . It’s just one more thing I’m going to overcome” (page 119). This is the essence of second-order competence."

- Brett N. Steenbarger

Lost 1.75 points in the MES today (SIM). I took 4 trades.

Trade 1:



This trade was more anticipatory than signal-based. I bought right at the top as price was pushing higher out of the open, and almost immediately after I entered, price sold off dramatically, and I was stopped out for a 3 point loss. Ouch. Not the best start to the trading day.

Trade 2:



This was a sad trade. I had the right idea, but I didn't have the conviction to let the trade develop. I got too caught up in a minor bullish signal (right where I closed), and I bought back for a 3 tick gain. I watched in frustration as the trade hit my mental profit target price after I closed, at 2898. At this point, I wasn't in the best state of mind- I was mad at myself. I walked away for a couple of minutes. I was still pissed when I came back.

Trade 3:



This trade was bad (I'm not beating myself up over it) because it wasn't as motivated by a strong signal as much as it was motivated by my desire to get back in the market to prove that I could hold a position, regardless of outcome. I was partially dwelling on the fact that I went from being able to hold trades with no problem in the recent past, to now acting like this. By the time I realized my distorted thought process, it was too late and I was already in the trade. When I got stopped out, there was a sense of relief- I proved to myself again, that I can hold a trade. -2 points

Trade 4:



This was the best trade of the day. The technicals and the signal aligned, I had a clear head, and I was willing to take the risk. We broke that ON tight range and I simply responded. Price reached my mental profit target, I held out longer thinking we could do better, then price went up a point, and I closed out then. +2.5 points

If I had to sum up what happened today: I took a loss at the very beginning that wasn't so bad. But because of that loss, I became more sensitive to the prospect of another loss- so when my good trade idea that I executed showed a moment of weakness, I closed the trade out of defense. That counterproductive/emotional behavior snowballed into the focus on a core problem (leaving money on the table), and through the third trade, I traded to solve the inner problem, not the market. The evidence of my competence expressed in the third trade satisfied me, and relieved tension, enabling me to see price clearly, and enabling me to re-accept risk.

I did follow my process through and through pre-open, but my performance was different today, compared to yesterday. I was more reactive than I normally am- I entered the market 6-7 minutes after the open- I'm not supposed to do that. I made a rule that I should let the trading day develop to determine what kind of day it's going to be, or if it's even worth trading. I didn't do this step because volume and volatility was promising right out of the open, and I didn't want to miss that bullish drive (FOMO). As for me not holding that trade, I understand why I didn't. I think I just need more exposure and practice holding trades in the footprint.

I'm thinking about waking up earlier so I can practice my performance in market replay, before the open. This means I would focus on determining if it's worth trading on a given random day in the past, and if it is, then I would adapt my tactics to the current conditions. Then once I get past that step, I would trade like I usually do, except put a lot of emphasis on holding trades. Emulating and practicing these things frequently will make them habitual. That's what I have to do.

"It’s relatively easy to watch videotapes and catch the bad trades you make. Less apparent are the good trades you never make because you’re two steps behind the market. Missing a trade here, getting in or out at a worse price there: The costs of inefficiency add up. It’s the difference between an Intel crew changing tires and gassing a car up in 33 seconds and a pit crew’s performance of the same tasks in 14 seconds. Those are differences that win and lose races. Breon Klopp of PIT emphasized to me, “Practice makes permanent: Good and bad.” His point was that how we perform day after day becomes our habitual performance—for better and for worse. What we routinely do becomes our natural routine."

"When Richard Machowicz, author of Unleash the Warrior Within, left the Navy SEALs, he began a business teaching self-defense methods to interested students. He found that many of the students, despite skill and practice, froze during realistic simulated attacks. Not having a pre-programmed sense of what to do or where to strike, they suffered from what’s commonly known as analysis paralysis. He found, however, that when they were focused on potential targets—eyes-throat-groin—they were much more able to select their weapon—a fist, knee, or heel, for instance—and execute needed movements. Because fear disrupts normal thought processes, Machowicz trains his students with real throat grabs and other such attacks. The elements of any successful attack, he notes, are surprise, speed, and violence of action. All of these fall outside an opponent’s norms, making usual judgment and planning impossible. If targets are pre-programmed through experience, someone who is attacked can rapidly respond and save their life. Without such programming, like the World War II soldiers who never fired their weapons, we are apt to freeze, as we cannot grasp events outside our norms. What we do not envision, we cannot prepare for. NASCAR crews don’t merely anticipate routine maintenance; they are also prepared for the unknown: mechanical failures and damage caused by accidents. When SWAT teams breach an entrance and move into a room, they are prepared for any form of resistance. Surprise is the great enemy. All training is for naught if we are taken by surprise and cannot make sense of our experience."

- Steenbarger

I can't wait for tomorrow morning. I'm going to do everything that I'm supposed to do.

Lost 1.5 points today in the MES (SIM).

Trade 1:


(I did everything right in Trade 1)

Trade 2:


(+2 ticks, would've been +5 points if I held the trade like I was supposed to)

There was ambiguity in my rules surrounding what to do in this scenario, so I got out. It's important to note that I didn't close the second trade out of fear, which has happened the last two days. In this case, my exit was logical and I was in control (yet operating adaptively), it just sucks to see that I was right about the markets direction in the end. Knowing my personality, I think I can definitively say that I should just use the footprint as an entry tool, and not as an exit tool. I know, I've said this many times before, but through this testing of my adaptability last week that has crossed over into this week out of old habit and recent influence, it has really sunk in that I should just trust my entries and leave the trades alone- stop loss or profit target only. This point has been affirmed again and again through my mistakes this week. With it being the case that I've made this mistake many times, I have to re-drill the "hold the trade no matter what" mantra through my process again. That's do-able, and I've done it before with success.

I've noticed that my losses have become smaller, and it's not necessarily all because of taking profits early (I'd be up on the week if I didn't). Because I'm using the footprint and trading in the direction of high volume around certain levels, it's become unnecessary to use stops wider than 3 points. If I see a big seller entering a couple ticks beneath a high volume node or resistance, that's potentially a great opportunity for me in terms of asymmetrical reward. Using a 2 point stop, I can re-enter the market 3 more times if I get stopped out until I hit my max daily loss limit, and with my reads, I'm bound to hit a runner. At this point, it's a matter of me re-incorporating the non-intervention of trades, while continuing to make solid directional inferences in conjunction with the OrderFlow. Combine these 2 things with timely and precise entries determined through the OrderFlow and Volume Profile, and things come into a better light. As always, easier said than done- but I'm resilient and I know I can do it.

Also, not drinking coffee before trading really does have a positive effect on maintaining calmness and clarity, on top of diaphragmatic breathing. So no more coffee before trading for me.

Goals for tomorrow:
- Hold trades no matter what. It doesn't matter if volume slows down, it doesn't matter what happens. The reasoning for this implementation is because it would be easier for me to hold trades no matter what, than to maintain consistency in my calls of trade management. I have more skill in determining market direction than I do in making the right calls mid-trade. I have to play to this strength.
- Don't drink coffee, and diaphragmatically breathe pre-open. I actually made it a goal for this week, last week, to get better at remaining calm during a trade. In this respect, I did very well today. Not so much yesterday and the day before- but I'm getting there.

Keeping the big picture in mind.

Zachary Standley 

.......I entered the market 6-7 minutes after the open- I'm not supposed to do that. I made a rule that I should let the trading day develop to determine what kind of day it's going to be, or if it's even worth trading.

I tried having rules about not entering in the first 2-5-10-30 minutes after the open (the exact time kept changing), but found that I ended up taking FOMO trades as soon as I could after that period, quite often missing the directional section of the move and entering just as a period of consolidation or pullback starts. Or jumping in, feeling guilty that I shouldn't have traded then exiting straight away.
Now my thinking tends to be that some of the most directional and cleanest moves can be straight off the open. One thing I won't do is fade a push off the open but if there is good pressure driving a market then I can go with the momentum with a tight stop because if the pressure suddenly stops the trade premise is no longer valid.
Quite often I find that a simple indicator of whether there might be a move straight away is whether we are opening near the previous settle and the current day's VWAP. If we are then sentiment hasn't really changed since yesterday's close or overnight during the Asian and European session and it is usually unlikely that it suddenly does so on the dot of the RTH open.
But everybody finds different things that make sense to them. And like everything in trading sometimes the exact opposite is equally valid.

ps I think the Steenbarger books are excellent too, I have a quote in my signature line, but be careful quoting whole paragraphs and tables as there is a limit to what the copyright laws would consider fair use (limited quoting for review purposes or education, okay; simply transcribing chunks in to your journal, probably less so).

-5 points for the day. Taking a break for awhile.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lost 5 points in the MES today. (SIM)

Trade 1:



A bullish breakout attempt. Got stopped out. Lost 2 points.

Trade 2 and 3:



After that bearish breakout failed, I went short with the profit target at the bottom of the range. Gained 3 points. I anticipated a continuation to the ON's range, so I went short again. Lost 2 points.

Trade 4:



Price made lower lows, I re-entered with the same premise in mind as the previous trade. I quickly got stopped out.

Trade 5:



Tried for a third time at lower lows and got stopped out.


So I'm happy that I followed all of my rules, I was calm the whole time, I let myself get stopped out, and I let my mental profit target get hit before closing. In being calm though, I became less risk averse, and started acting on poor signals towards the end of my trading. I'm going to have to remember this / keep in mind to only act on strong signals when I'm feeling confident.

The trades that I consider to be good trades are 1 and 2. Trades 3, 4 and 5 were more anticipatory and impulsive than based on strong one-sided volume. That's where I went wrong.

I need to adjust to this calmer mindset / this no coffee mind.