LT Analysis
Just like last month when I did my scalp trades analysis to compare key points on winners and losers, now its time to do it for my LT trades. I waited a while because I needed to have a pretty good sample size and I needed to have enough frustrating losers for me to want to figure it out. And here I am.
1. Was it the first time the level came in play?
2. Had it visited the level before?
3. Had it broken the level before?
4. Had it broken multiple levels before?
5. Had it failed to stay above/under levels in the direction of my bias?
6. Had it failed a breakout against my bias?
7. Was trade around HTF at all?
8. If long above vwap? If short Under?
9. If long below vwap? If short above?
10. Was stock definitively trending in the direction of trade/bias?
11. Was there clear strength/weakness/trend/direction?
12. 1st hour?
13. Was trade entry after a failure?
14. Was there a TL break involved?
15. Was entry on a breakout?
16. Was trade entry on just a level/area touch? A Catch trade.
17. Was trade entry as stock was going into HTF level?
18. Was trade entry as stock had already claimed HTF level in favor of bias?
19. Volume Cues?
20. Consolidation? (at least 5 minutes)
21. If profitable, Would I have saved money exiting near b/e?
22. Was it profitable shortly after?
23. Was it profitable much later?
In total I took 92 LT trades on individual names. 259 including adds. 29 wins and 63 losses.
Avg Win combined +105$
Avg Loss combined -42$
Avg risk on Win combined 85$
Avg risk on Loss combined 53$
Avg Win Total +34$
Avg Loss Total -17$
Avg risk on Wins Total 23$
Avg risk on Loss Total -23$
I split these up because I want to know how well I am adding to winners and how it works out for me in a holistic view. If I add 20$ risk on every add, then regardless of how big that win was, chances are that win is only going to be ~30$. BUT if I take a look at the whole trade as just 1 trade/entry. Then that risk will be larger and that average win should be bigger than looking at it per individual add.
Avg R on Wins total +1.23
Avg R on Loss total -.79
Compliance 88%
Avg MAE -.62
Avg MAE on wins -.24
Avg MAE on losers -.84
^ Below -1R is what I want. The better I get at cutting faster the closer to 0 itll run.
Avg MFE on losers .52
Pretty happy with these numbers. Risk is up on winners and down on losers and that is the goal here. Avg win double that of loser. Avg combined win only slightly more than +1R which can be improved but also makes sense. When I add to my winners, for the most part my stop is not changing. So the target R decreases while $$ risk is increasing. Not much to change about that I dont think, nor is it necessarily a bad thing. Given more time in the trade and later adds, that number can be reduced much more.
Just like last time ill separate the winners and losers.
WINNERS
1. / 1
2. //////////////////////////// 28
3. //////////////////////////// 28
4. ////////////////// 18
5. ////////////// 14
6. ////////////////////// 22
7. ///////////////////////////// 29
8. /////////////////////// 23
9. ////// 6
10. //////////////////// 20
11. /////////////////////////// 27
12 /////////////// 15
13. //////////////////// 20
14. ////////////// 14
15. ///// 5
16. ////////////// 14
17. /// 3
18. //////////////////////// 24
19. ////////////////////// 22
20. //////////////////////// 24
21.
22. ///////////////////////////// 29
23. ////////////////////// 22
LOSERS
1. //////// 8
2. /////////////////////////////////////////////// 47
3. //////////////////////////////////////////////// 48
4. /////////////////////// 23
5. ///////////////////////////// 29
6. ///////////////////////// 25
7. //////////////////////////////////////////////////// 52
8. ////////////////////////////////////// 38
9. ////////////////////// 22
10. ////////////////////// 22
11. ////////////////////////////////// 34
12. //////////////////////////// 28
13. /////////////////////////////// 31
14. ////////////////// 18
15. //// 4
16. /////////////////// 19
17. /////////////// 15
18. //////////////////////////// 28
19. //////////////// 16
20. ////////////////////////////////////// 38
21. ////////////////// 18
22. //////////// 12
23. ////////////// 14
Taken after failure into HTF level or vwap ++
Intraday data is more important after levels are broken. HTF levels are only important if they act as S/R.
Best trades come from the HTF level/Area. The good moves come from them, not away from them.
VWAP is an excellent gauge to see where stock may trend. Does not mean there are not good longs below it, but when it comes to seeing the trend move the furthest and longest, vwap is best guide.
The worst losers dont have any of these tags.
The stock demonstrates that the level is significant clearly after time has passed around it.
Best LT trades involve clear tape action. Notable sellers/buyers following price, refreshing.
Tape/volume/failure, just like my scalps, are all the biggest indicators to my best wins.
Clean and clear leads to the best trades. Cleanly holding below or above levels.
So now in percentage terms and defining it.
Winners
1. 1 of 29 only came into contact with the level the 1st time. Safe to say, best wins have been at the level before.
2. All but one visited the level before
3. All but one had already broken the level before.
4. 62% had broken multiple HTF levels before. Tells me if there are more HTF levels involved, chances are its a better win.
5. 48% had failed to stay above/under the level in the direction I want to take the trade. Im taking this as, as long as the stock is acting favorable on the tape, it doesnt necessarily mean I should avoid the trade if it isnt holding above it if I want long, or below it if I want short.
6. 76% of my winning LT trades had failed a breakout in the opposite direction. This is good to know
7. All occurred at or just around the HTF level.
8. 79% if long, were above vwap, and if short, were below.
9. And the opposite only 21% were inverted.
10. 69% were definitively trading in the direction of my bias. Higher highs, higher lows etc.
11. 93% showed clear strength/weakness signals. Basically means clean and clear PA.
12. 52% occurred in the 1st hour of the day.
13. 69% were entered just shortly after a failed break in the opposite direction.
14. 48% there was a TL break involved. Either supporting, or breaking, or failed a break.
15. Only 17%, entries were on breakouts. Tells me if I am looking for an LT trade, my best chances lie within waiting on pullbacks. Not taking the break.
16. 48% were taken as trade was coming into HTF level. I 'caught' the trade as it was running against me. The other 52% were either after it already did, and was coming back in my favor, or on the break.
17. Only 10% were taken as it was going into the HTF level. Meaning I shouldnt expect winners to come from trades that arent already involved with the HTF level.
18. 83% were as the stock had already claimed the HTF level in favor of my bias.
19. 76% had notable volume cues.
20. 83% were after some kind of consolidation
21.
22. 100% were profitable shortly after entry.
23. 83% were profitable much later after entry.
Some very good numbers in here. Completely obvious what the biggest variables to my winners are.
1. Failure
2. Clean and clear PA.
3. If long, holding above vwap + HTF level. If short, holding below vwap + HTF level.
4. Stock has already been trading around this level and shown signs it wants to stay above/below it in favor of bias.
Losers
1. 13% of losers occurred at 1st HTF level test.
2. 75% had already traded around the HTF level
3. 76% had broken the level already
4. 37% had broken multiple HTF levels before
5. 46% failed to stay above/under the level in favor of my bias. Same as the winners. Tells me that I shouldnt be opposed to not taking trades that have failed to stay above/under level in favor of my bias, but does tell me I need to be seeing something else on the tape to make up for that lack of context.
6. 40% Failed a breakout against my bias. Compared to winners at 76%, this is a pretty big discrepancy. If I take 10 LT trades after a failed breakout the opposite direction, I should expect 7 of them to be winners.
7. 83% were taking around or at HTF level. Tells me trade location is not most important factor in determining if its a good trade or bad. Rather a lack of other variables lead to losers.
8. 60% were on same side of vwap
9. 35% were on opposite side of vwap.
10. 35% were clearly trending in direction of bias.
11. 54% showed strength/weakness in direction of bias
12. 44% in 1st hour of the day
13. 49% entry was after a failure
14. 29% involved a trendline.
15. Only 4 entries were on a breakout
16. 30% were on a catch trade
17. 24% were as it was going into the HTF level
18. 44% of losers, the stock had already claimed HTF level in favor of bias.
19. 25% had volume cues
20. 60% were after some consolidation
21. 29% I would have saved more money if I had just exited at breakeven, rather than wait for stop
22. 19% were profitable shortly after
23. 22% were profitable much later
So what stands out the most in my losers? Pretty much the opposite of the winning trades. Volume cues is a huge one. Failure is a big one. Immediate profitability another big one. A lack of clean and clear price action such as holding above/under the level.
Pretty standard obvious things. The more variables im able to put together, the more likely its going to be a winner.
So what kinds of variables do I need to look out for, in order to avoid taking a trade.
1. Not cleanly holding above/below HTF level.
2. No volume cues.
3. No failed breakouts.
4. Avoid longs under vwap. I know there will be exceptions to this one.
5. Not clearly trending in favor of bias.
6. Not showing signs of strength if wanting long, or weak if wanting short.
I need to avoid trades that are not holding levels/areas. I need to wait for a resolution before getting involved.
Trade the best leave the rest.
The BEST LT trade would look like this
1. Failed a breakout the opposite direction, either into the HTF level or from being above it, to breaking against it.
2. Volume is weak against my bias, and strong with it.
3. Clear tape signals showing interest towards my bias
4. Trendline breaks (either a failed or as HTF comes into play with and breaks it. Not necessary though
5. If long, above vwap, if short, below
6. Has already visited the level previously and held above/below it.
7. Fighting for price, catching it, not chasing it.
8. Works immediately.
All these numbers and data are finally giving me a good idea on what I need to lay out in order to build a process around how I trade/want to/ should trade these. The interaction with the HTF level is the most important aspect for my LT trades.
This way of trading is still kinda new to me so I will have to do this again at a later date. Now I have a really good foundation on which to start building a strategy around I can get to work knowing what my best trades have and dont have. All boiling down to patience. Waiting until the stock looks good enough to trade, not trying to guess that I will look good later.
1. Was it the first time the level came in play?
2. Had it visited the level before?
3. Had it broken the level before?
4. Had it broken multiple levels before?
5. Had it failed to stay above/under levels in the direction of my bias?
6. Had it failed a breakout against my bias?
7. Was trade around HTF at all?
8. If long above vwap? If short Under?
9. If long below vwap? If short above?
10. Was stock definitively trending in the direction of trade/bias?
11. Was there clear strength/weakness/trend/direction?
12. 1st hour?
13. Was trade entry after a failure?
14. Was there a TL break involved?
15. Was entry on a breakout?
16. Was trade entry on just a level/area touch? A Catch trade.
17. Was trade entry as stock was going into HTF level?
18. Was trade entry as stock had already claimed HTF level in favor of bias?
19. Volume Cues?
20. Consolidation? (at least 5 minutes)
21. If profitable, Would I have saved money exiting near b/e?
22. Was it profitable shortly after?
23. Was it profitable much later?
In total I took 92 LT trades on individual names. 259 including adds. 29 wins and 63 losses.
Avg Win combined +105$
Avg Loss combined -42$
Avg risk on Win combined 85$
Avg risk on Loss combined 53$
Avg Win Total +34$
Avg Loss Total -17$
Avg risk on Wins Total 23$
Avg risk on Loss Total -23$
I split these up because I want to know how well I am adding to winners and how it works out for me in a holistic view. If I add 20$ risk on every add, then regardless of how big that win was, chances are that win is only going to be ~30$. BUT if I take a look at the whole trade as just 1 trade/entry. Then that risk will be larger and that average win should be bigger than looking at it per individual add.
Avg R on Wins total +1.23
Avg R on Loss total -.79
Compliance 88%
Avg MAE -.62
Avg MAE on wins -.24
Avg MAE on losers -.84
^ Below -1R is what I want. The better I get at cutting faster the closer to 0 itll run.
Avg MFE on losers .52
Pretty happy with these numbers. Risk is up on winners and down on losers and that is the goal here. Avg win double that of loser. Avg combined win only slightly more than +1R which can be improved but also makes sense. When I add to my winners, for the most part my stop is not changing. So the target R decreases while $$ risk is increasing. Not much to change about that I dont think, nor is it necessarily a bad thing. Given more time in the trade and later adds, that number can be reduced much more.
Just like last time ill separate the winners and losers.
WINNERS
1. / 1
2. //////////////////////////// 28
3. //////////////////////////// 28
4. ////////////////// 18
5. ////////////// 14
6. ////////////////////// 22
7. ///////////////////////////// 29
8. /////////////////////// 23
9. ////// 6
10. //////////////////// 20
11. /////////////////////////// 27
12 /////////////// 15
13. //////////////////// 20
14. ////////////// 14
15. ///// 5
16. ////////////// 14
17. /// 3
18. //////////////////////// 24
19. ////////////////////// 22
20. //////////////////////// 24
21.
22. ///////////////////////////// 29
23. ////////////////////// 22
LOSERS
1. //////// 8
2. /////////////////////////////////////////////// 47
3. //////////////////////////////////////////////// 48
4. /////////////////////// 23
5. ///////////////////////////// 29
6. ///////////////////////// 25
7. //////////////////////////////////////////////////// 52
8. ////////////////////////////////////// 38
9. ////////////////////// 22
10. ////////////////////// 22
11. ////////////////////////////////// 34
12. //////////////////////////// 28
13. /////////////////////////////// 31
14. ////////////////// 18
15. //// 4
16. /////////////////// 19
17. /////////////// 15
18. //////////////////////////// 28
19. //////////////// 16
20. ////////////////////////////////////// 38
21. ////////////////// 18
22. //////////// 12
23. ////////////// 14
Taken after failure into HTF level or vwap ++
Intraday data is more important after levels are broken. HTF levels are only important if they act as S/R.
Best trades come from the HTF level/Area. The good moves come from them, not away from them.
VWAP is an excellent gauge to see where stock may trend. Does not mean there are not good longs below it, but when it comes to seeing the trend move the furthest and longest, vwap is best guide.
The worst losers dont have any of these tags.
The stock demonstrates that the level is significant clearly after time has passed around it.
Best LT trades involve clear tape action. Notable sellers/buyers following price, refreshing.
Tape/volume/failure, just like my scalps, are all the biggest indicators to my best wins.
Clean and clear leads to the best trades. Cleanly holding below or above levels.
So now in percentage terms and defining it.
Winners
1. 1 of 29 only came into contact with the level the 1st time. Safe to say, best wins have been at the level before.
2. All but one visited the level before
3. All but one had already broken the level before.
4. 62% had broken multiple HTF levels before. Tells me if there are more HTF levels involved, chances are its a better win.
5. 48% had failed to stay above/under the level in the direction I want to take the trade. Im taking this as, as long as the stock is acting favorable on the tape, it doesnt necessarily mean I should avoid the trade if it isnt holding above it if I want long, or below it if I want short.
6. 76% of my winning LT trades had failed a breakout in the opposite direction. This is good to know
7. All occurred at or just around the HTF level.
8. 79% if long, were above vwap, and if short, were below.
9. And the opposite only 21% were inverted.
10. 69% were definitively trading in the direction of my bias. Higher highs, higher lows etc.
11. 93% showed clear strength/weakness signals. Basically means clean and clear PA.
12. 52% occurred in the 1st hour of the day.
13. 69% were entered just shortly after a failed break in the opposite direction.
14. 48% there was a TL break involved. Either supporting, or breaking, or failed a break.
15. Only 17%, entries were on breakouts. Tells me if I am looking for an LT trade, my best chances lie within waiting on pullbacks. Not taking the break.
16. 48% were taken as trade was coming into HTF level. I 'caught' the trade as it was running against me. The other 52% were either after it already did, and was coming back in my favor, or on the break.
17. Only 10% were taken as it was going into the HTF level. Meaning I shouldnt expect winners to come from trades that arent already involved with the HTF level.
18. 83% were as the stock had already claimed the HTF level in favor of my bias.
19. 76% had notable volume cues.
20. 83% were after some kind of consolidation
21.
22. 100% were profitable shortly after entry.
23. 83% were profitable much later after entry.
Some very good numbers in here. Completely obvious what the biggest variables to my winners are.
1. Failure
2. Clean and clear PA.
3. If long, holding above vwap + HTF level. If short, holding below vwap + HTF level.
4. Stock has already been trading around this level and shown signs it wants to stay above/below it in favor of bias.
Losers
1. 13% of losers occurred at 1st HTF level test.
2. 75% had already traded around the HTF level
3. 76% had broken the level already
4. 37% had broken multiple HTF levels before
5. 46% failed to stay above/under the level in favor of my bias. Same as the winners. Tells me that I shouldnt be opposed to not taking trades that have failed to stay above/under level in favor of my bias, but does tell me I need to be seeing something else on the tape to make up for that lack of context.
6. 40% Failed a breakout against my bias. Compared to winners at 76%, this is a pretty big discrepancy. If I take 10 LT trades after a failed breakout the opposite direction, I should expect 7 of them to be winners.
7. 83% were taking around or at HTF level. Tells me trade location is not most important factor in determining if its a good trade or bad. Rather a lack of other variables lead to losers.
8. 60% were on same side of vwap
9. 35% were on opposite side of vwap.
10. 35% were clearly trending in direction of bias.
11. 54% showed strength/weakness in direction of bias
12. 44% in 1st hour of the day
13. 49% entry was after a failure
14. 29% involved a trendline.
15. Only 4 entries were on a breakout
16. 30% were on a catch trade
17. 24% were as it was going into the HTF level
18. 44% of losers, the stock had already claimed HTF level in favor of bias.
19. 25% had volume cues
20. 60% were after some consolidation
21. 29% I would have saved more money if I had just exited at breakeven, rather than wait for stop
22. 19% were profitable shortly after
23. 22% were profitable much later
So what stands out the most in my losers? Pretty much the opposite of the winning trades. Volume cues is a huge one. Failure is a big one. Immediate profitability another big one. A lack of clean and clear price action such as holding above/under the level.
Pretty standard obvious things. The more variables im able to put together, the more likely its going to be a winner.
So what kinds of variables do I need to look out for, in order to avoid taking a trade.
1. Not cleanly holding above/below HTF level.
2. No volume cues.
3. No failed breakouts.
4. Avoid longs under vwap. I know there will be exceptions to this one.
5. Not clearly trending in favor of bias.
6. Not showing signs of strength if wanting long, or weak if wanting short.
I need to avoid trades that are not holding levels/areas. I need to wait for a resolution before getting involved.
Trade the best leave the rest.
The BEST LT trade would look like this
1. Failed a breakout the opposite direction, either into the HTF level or from being above it, to breaking against it.
2. Volume is weak against my bias, and strong with it.
3. Clear tape signals showing interest towards my bias
4. Trendline breaks (either a failed or as HTF comes into play with and breaks it. Not necessary though
5. If long, above vwap, if short, below
6. Has already visited the level previously and held above/below it.
7. Fighting for price, catching it, not chasing it.
8. Works immediately.
All these numbers and data are finally giving me a good idea on what I need to lay out in order to build a process around how I trade/want to/ should trade these. The interaction with the HTF level is the most important aspect for my LT trades.
This way of trading is still kinda new to me so I will have to do this again at a later date. Now I have a really good foundation on which to start building a strategy around I can get to work knowing what my best trades have and dont have. All boiling down to patience. Waiting until the stock looks good enough to trade, not trying to guess that I will look good later.
Comments
Post a Comment