Tag Archive for: Overtrading

It’s not about the money

For as long as I can remember, I’ve set myself a daily target. Make X a day. Hit the number, close the platform, get on with the rest of the day.

It felt sensible. A good number to aim for, something to measure each session against.

Lately, though, I’ve caught myself overtrading because of it.

Green, but not green enough

Here’s the pattern. I’m up on the day. A trade has played out and the P&L is green. But it’s short of the number.

So I take one more. Then, if that one doesn’t get me there, another. Each trade feels reasonable in the moment. But if I’m honest, the reason I’m taking it isn’t the chart. It’s the gap between where I am and where I said I’d be.

You can guess how it goes. A green day I could have banked turns into a smaller green day. Sometimes it turns into a red one. Sometimes it turns into drawdown.

The frustrating part is that none of this is news. Every trader has heard “don’t overtrade.” Knowing it and catching yourself doing it are not the same thing.

Every trader has heard “don’t overtrade.” Knowing it and catching yourself doing it are not the same thing.

Chasing a number, not a setup

Today a phrase popped into my head: it’s not about the money.

Something clicked. Maybe I’m not overtrading because the market is offering lots of setups. Maybe I’m overtrading because I’m chasing a number. Not a setup.

That’s a real difference. A setup is something the market shows you. It either meets your criteria or it doesn’t. A daily target is something you bring to the market. It has nothing to do with what price is doing. The market doesn’t know you’re short of your number, and it doesn’t care.

Once the number is in charge, the question you ask yourself changes. Instead of “does this meet my rules?” it becomes “can this get me the rest of the way?” Those two questions lead to very different trades.

What if there was no number?

So I’ve been sitting with a simple question. What if there was no number at all?

What if I took one trade, the one that properly meets my criteria, and accepted whatever it gave me? A win, a loss, a scratch. Done for the day.

It sounds almost too simple. That’s partly why it appeals. There’s nothing left to chase if the day is already finished.

A daily target is something you bring to the market. It has nothing to do with what price is doing

The obvious objection

One trade won’t add up to five or six green ones. That’s the first thing I thought, and it’s probably the first thing you thought too.

Fair. But I think that’s a sizing question, not a trade count question.

If I’m taking five or six trades to reach a daily figure, each one is sized small enough to allow for that many. Flip it around. Fewer trades, higher quality, larger size on the ones that meet my criteria. In theory, the same daily potential, with far fewer chances to give it back.

I want to be careful here, because “size up” is the kind of advice that gets people hurt. Bigger size means each loss lands harder too. This only works if a few things hold:

  • The criteria have to be strict. If “one quality trade” quietly becomes “one trade that looked okay,” it’s the same problem with more contracts.
  • The daily risk limit doesn’t move. Larger size on one trade has to fit inside the limit you already use, not replace it.
  • You have to be fine with a red day. One trade means some days end on a loss with nothing after it. That’s the deal.

None of this is proven yet. It’s a theory I’m about to test, not a result I’m reporting.

Making the plan the target

What changes most isn’t the maths. It’s what counts as a good day.

With a number, a good day is one where the P&L hits a figure. Without it, a good day is one where I executed the plan well. I waited for the setup. I took it at the right size. I managed it the way I said I would. Then I stopped.

That’s a target I can actually control. The market decides the P&L. I decide whether I followed my process.

It also fits how The Daily Trading Planner is meant to work. The planner is there to set your risk, trade limits and stop conditions before the session starts, while you’re calm. A trade limit of one is just a stricter version of the same idea.

If this sounds familiar

If you’ve got a daily target and you’ve ever turned a green day into a red one chasing it, try this before your next session. Go back through your journal and find the days you gave money back. Look at where the P&L was before the trade that started the slide.

Then ask yourself honestly. Was that trade taken because the setup was there, or because the number wasn’t?

You don’t need to scrap your target because I’m scrapping mine. But it’s worth knowing whether it’s working for you or against you.

Quality over quantity

So that’s where I’ve landed, for now. One trade (maybe 2). Proper criteria. Sized so the trades count. Accept what they give.

I don’t know yet how it’ll play out over a few weeks. I’ll log it and let the data show me.

It’s not about the money. It’s about doing the work well, and letting the money be whatever it turns out to be.

Building a checklist that actually stops you taking bad trades

Most traders have a checklist. Far fewer have one that has ever stopped them from taking a trade.

That gap is the whole problem. A checklist that has never once produced a “no” isn’t a filter. It’s decoration.

It’s worth being specific about why they fail, because the failure is usually in the design, not in you.

A checklist you abandon under pressure isn’t a checklist. It’s a document.

Why most trading checklists don’t work

They’re too long. Fifteen items reads fine on a quiet Sunday afternoon. At 09:32 with price moving, you’ll skim the first three and assume the rest. A checklist you abandon under pressure isn’t a checklist. It’s a document.

They’re written as aspirations. “Be patient.” “Trade with the trend.” “Wait for confirmation.” These sound like rules but they can’t be answered. You can convince yourself you’re being patient while clicking the mouse. Anything you can argue with, you will argue with.

They’re read after the decision. This is the quiet one. You see a setup, you decide you’re taking it, and then you glance at the list. At that point you’re not testing the trade, you’re looking for permission. The checklist becomes a rubber stamp for a decision you already made.

Nothing happens when an item fails. If “price is above my marked level” comes back as no, and you take the trade anyway, then the item was never a condition. It was a comment.

Fix those four things and you have something that works.

What a working item looks like

Every item has to be answerable in a couple of seconds, with a yes or a no, by someone who is not in a calm mood.

Not “is the trend strong.”

“Is price above the higher timeframe level I marked before the session opened.”

The second version has one answer. You marked the level before you had a position or an opinion about this specific trade, so the past version of you is doing the judging. That’s the point. You’re outsourcing the decision to a clearer-headed you.

Some more of the same conversion:

  • “Is there a clean setup” becomes “did price take out the high or low I marked, then close back inside it.”
  • “Is the risk sensible” becomes “is my stop where the idea is wrong, and is that distance inside the risk I wrote down this morning.”
  • “Am I trading my plan” becomes “is this one of the Points of Interest (POIs) on my chart before the session started.”

Notice what’s happened. The judgement has moved from during the trade to before it. That’s most of the work.

Keep it to five to seven items

Long checklists feel thorough. They aren’t, because they don’t survive contact with a live market.

Five to seven lines. One line each. If an item doesn’t earn its place, cut it.

And put the items that most often stop you at the top. This matters more than it sounds. If you only get through three lines before the impatience wins, those three lines still have to have done their job. The order isn’t cosmetic. It’s the failure plan.

You’ll only know which items those are by recording the trades you regret. Over a few weeks the pattern is usually consistent: two or three failures do most of the damage.

At least one item has to be about you

Every item so far is about the chart. Your state is a real variable, and it changes the quality of your decisions more than most people admit.

So include at least one line about the trader, not the market:

  • Have I already hit my daily loss limit.
  • Is this the third trade in twenty minutes.
  • Am I entering because the setup appeared, or because I want to be in something.

That last one is uncomfortable. It’s also the one that catches the most trades. Wanting to be in a position is not a reason. It just feels like one, because the feeling arrives at the same time the reason usually would.

The pre-session numbers those questions rely on, the daily loss limit, the trade limit, the point where you stop for the day, have to exist somewhere in writing before the session. The Daily Trading Planner on the site is one place to keep them. Anywhere works, as long as it’s written down and decided in advance.

Attach the consequence in advance

This is the part that makes the rest of it real.

A failed item means no trade. Not a smaller trade. Not a trade with a wider stop. No trade.

Decide it before the session, because in the moment it will always feel like an exception. This one is different. The item is being too strict. The spirit of the rule is satisfied even if the letter isn’t. Every trader has that conversation with themselves, and the only defence is having settled it earlier, when nothing was at stake.

A checklist without a consequence is a list of preferences.

A failed item means no trade. Not a smaller trade. Not a trade with a wider stop. No trade.

It works before entry and nowhere else

Once you’re in, the checklist is finished. Its job is done.

Re-reading it with a position open does nothing except reassure you, and reassurance is not information. The trade is either working or it isn’t, and that’s a question for your stop and your target. Used after entry, a checklist becomes a comfort blanket, something to hold while you avoid managing the trade you have.

Before entry, it’s a filter. After entry, it’s noise.

Why checklists exist at all

Aviation and surgery lean on checklists heavily, and the reasoning transfers. The point isn’t that the pilot has forgotten how to fly. It’s that under pressure, with time compressed and attention narrowed, anyone skips steps. Competence doesn’t protect you from that. Structure does.

You know what a good setup looks like. You will still take a bad one at 14:31 because you’re bored, or behind, or certain.

Write it tonight

Not this weekend. Tonight.

Five to seven items. One line each. Every one answerable yes or no in two seconds. The ones that most often stop you at the top. At least one about your state rather than the chart. And underneath, in your own handwriting, the consequence: any no means no trade.

Then print it. Put it where you can see it without opening anything, taped to the monitor, propped against the screen, somewhere your eye lands without a click.

The version that lives in a document you have to go and find is the version you’ll skip on exactly the day you needed it.

Burnout, screen fatigue, and knowing when not to trade

The loss that has nothing to do with the chart

The worst trades I have taken were not bad setups. They were good setups, taken on bad days. The signal was clean. The structure was there. The problem was the person reading it. Tired, flat, already three hours deep into a screen, looking for something to happen because sitting still felt like falling behind. That is not a trading mistake in the usual sense. It is a fatigue mistake wearing a trading costume.

For a long time I did not see it. A red day got filed under “the market was choppy” or “my entry was early.” Sometimes that was true. But often the real cause sat further upstream, in how I had slept, how long I had been staring, and whether I had any business being at the desk at all.

Real discipline includes the decision not to play.

Burnout does not arrive, it accumulates

Trading burnout is not a single dramatic moment. There is no alarm. It builds quietly, one slightly-too-long session at a time, until the screen stops being a tool and starts being a habit you cannot put down. The early signs are easy to talk yourself out of. You read the same candle five times and still could not say what it is telling you. You feel a small flare of irritation when price does not do what you wanted. You take a trade and feel relief rather than calm, because at least now something is happening. None of these are about the market. All of them are about you.

Screen fatigue compounds it. Hours of watching small movements narrows your view until the five-minute chart feels like the whole world. The longer you sit, the more reasonable a marginal setup starts to look, because your brain wants a reason to justify the time already spent. That is the trap. The cost of the seat makes you more likely to fill it badly.

The tells, named honestly

It helped me to write the signs down, plainly, so I could not pretend not to notice them. I am trading to feel productive rather than because the setup is there. I have moved my stop “just to give it room.” I am annoyed at the market, as if it owes me. I have stopped journaling because I do not want to see what is in there. I am refreshing the chart on my phone between other things. I cannot remember the last time I stepped away from the screen and felt fine about it.

Any one of these on its own is normal. Two or three stacked together is a signal, and it is a louder signal than most of the ones I draw on the chart. It says the edge today is not in the market. It is in not trading the market.

Stepping away is a skill, not a weakness

There is a quiet belief in trading culture that the serious people are the ones always at the desk. More screen time, more hours, more grinding. It sounds like discipline. Often it is the opposite. Real discipline includes the decision not to play. A professional in almost any precise craft knows that working tired produces worse work, and worse work in trading is not just unproductive, it is expensive. Stepping away on a bad day is not laziness or fear. It is risk management applied to the one variable nobody likes to admit is variable: yourself.

The hard part is that the decision has to be made before you sit down, not after the first loss. Once you are in the chair, fatigued and looking for action, you are the last person who should be deciding whether you are fit to trade.

So the question to ask before the session is not “what is the market doing.” It is “should I be here at all.”

Build the rule before you need it

This is where having something written down earns its place. I use the Daily Trading Planner to set the conditions of the day before the market gives me a reason to bend them. Risk limit, profit target, maximum number of trades, and the point at which I stop, full stop. Defined in the calm before, not the heat of during.

The planner is not really about the numbers. It is about removing the decision from the tired version of me. If the rule says two losses and I am done, then a third trade is not a judgement call I get to relitigate at the desk. It is already settled. The same goes for the days I should not start at all. A short pre-session check, an honest read of how I actually feel, and the permission, written in advance, to close the laptop and call it a flat day.

A flat day is not a wasted day. It is a protected account and a clearer head tomorrow. Over a year, the days I talked myself out of trading have saved me more than most of the days I traded well.

The quiet version of professional

None of this is dramatic. There is no breakthrough, no transformation. Just a slightly more honest relationship with my own state, and a rule that holds when I cannot. The market will be there tomorrow. It is open more hours than any person can sensibly trade, and it does not reward attendance. It rewards the trades you take well and punishes the ones you take tired. Knowing the difference, and being willing to act on it, is not a soft skill around the edges of trading. On a lot of days, it is the whole game.

So the question to ask before the session is not “what is the market doing.” It is “should I be here at all.” Some days the most disciplined thing on the screen is the decision to turn it off.

Week 12 Recap: When One Week Feels Like Two

Some weeks are easy to explain. This wasn’t one of them.

Week 12 split itself into two very different halves. Same markets, same approach, but completely different outcomes. Early on, it felt like nothing was really working. By the end, things had settled, and the week closed green. Not dramatically, just quietly solid.

Looking at the numbers, Monday finished flat at 0R across five trades. Tuesday and Wednesday followed with controlled losses of -1.81R and -1.32R. Then the shift came. Thursday returned +3.49R from two trades, and Friday added +5.28R from three trades. Net result, a green week, but that doesn’t quite capture how it felt midweek.

A Flat Start That Wasn’t Really Flat

Monday is a good place to start because it highlights something that’s been showing up more often. It was a flat day on paper, but not in reality. There was a solid unrealised gain early in the session that slowly got given back. Not through one mistake, just a gradual erosion.

That raises a useful question. Am I managing downside better than upside?

Right now, it looks like the answer is yes. Losses are controlled. Risk is respected. There’s no sense of things getting out of hand. But locking in gains, especially when they’re there early, is still inconsistent. Both sides matter, and at the moment they’re developing at slightly different speeds.

Midweek Pressure, Controlled but Not Comfortable

Midweek is where things got uncomfortable, but also where some real progress showed up. Three red days in a row if you include Monday’s flat result. Confidence dipped a bit, especially trading metals, which felt slightly out of sync. Entries would trigger, but follow through wasn’t there, and moves stalled just before they should extend.

It’s a frustrating environment. Not chaotic, just enough friction to wear you down.

The important part is what didn’t happen. There was no revenge trading, no increase in size, and no deviation from the plan. Losses were capped under 2R each day, consistently. That’s not luck, that’s structure holding up under pressure. It might not feel like a win in the moment, but it is. It’s what keeps a rough patch from turning into a damaging week.

Then Something Shifted

The second half of the week felt different, but not in a dramatic way. Trade frequency dropped, execution felt cleaner, and outcomes improved.

Thursday delivered +3.49R from two trades, and Friday followed with +5.28R from three. A five trade win streak closed things out. Fewer trades, better outcomes. That combination usually points to something subtle improving rather than anything major changing.

The Goldilocks Problem

If there’s one idea that stands out from this week, it’s this. Not all zones are worth trading, even if they look valid.

Earlier in the week, there was a tendency to engage with tighter zones. They looked clean and precise, but didn’t carry much weight in live conditions. Price would interact, but not respect them in a meaningful way, which led to getting tagged in and then chopped out.

Later in the week, the focus shifted toward more balanced zones. Areas with enough structure to matter, but also enough space for the trade to develop properly. Not too tight, not too broad. That change alone reduced the need to take marginal setups and improved follow through on the trades that were taken.

You can see it reflected in activity as well. Early in the week there were 5, 7, and 3 trades per day. Later, that dropped to 2 and 3. Less activity, better outcomes. That’s usually a sign that selection is improving.

The Quiet Win (That Doesn’t Show in R)

It would be easy to point to the green PnL as the highlight of the week. It wasn’t.

The real win was getting through three difficult days without any emotional escalation. No spiral, no urgency to recover losses, no shift into reactive trading.

That wasn’t always the case, and it’s the kind of progress that doesn’t show up in a results column but shows up everywhere else over time.

So What Actually Improved

Not the strategy. Not the market. Just execution.

Better zone selection, less overtrading, and continued discipline around risk. Profit protection still needs work, especially on days where gains are there early, but the foundation feels stronger.

Final Thought

Progress doesn’t arrive cleanly. It shows up in fragments.

You improve one side, like loss control, while another still needs work, like protecting profits. You go through rough patches, then things start to click, not perfectly, but enough.

Week 12 wasn’t perfect, but it was honest. And more importantly, it felt like progress that can actually be repeated.

Week 11 Recap: Locking in the Gains

There are some weeks where trading feels unusually clean. Not easy, exactly, but clean. The decisions are clearer. The setups stand out. Losses do not sting in the same way because everything sits inside the process.

Week 11 felt like that.

From Monday through Wednesday, the rhythm was strong. The week started green, stayed calm, and carried that tone through the first half of the session block. By Wednesday, it genuinely felt like things were clicking. Trades were being selected with more care. Marginal setups were passed on without much internal debate. There was less noise, less forcing, less need to be involved in every move.

In other words, I was sticking to the plan.

That showed up in a few obvious ways. There were fewer trades overall. Adherence to the trade planner was better. The early-week win rate was strong. More importantly, losing trades were handled without frustration. They happened, they were accepted, and then the focus returned to the next decision.

That emotional shift matters more than it might seem.

When a strategy has a real edge across a large sample size, individual trades lose a lot of their emotional weight. They still matter, of course, but they stop feeling personal. A loss becomes a business expense rather than a verdict. That was probably the biggest improvement this week. There was less attachment to each outcome and more trust in the process itself.

For the first few days, everything felt controlled. Measured. Ordinary, in the best sense of the word. That kind of trading is rarely dramatic, but it is usually where the best work gets done. It fits closely with the broader philosophy behind The Ordinary Trader: calm, process-led execution without hype or emotional exaggeration. 

Discipline is never permanent. It has to be renewed in real time.

The day discipline slipped

Then Thursday arrived and offered a useful reminder: discipline is never permanent. It has to be renewed in real time.

At around 9am, I had taken one trade and was already up +2.2R for the day. My daily target is 2R. So the correct decision was not complicated. The day had done its job. My job was to close the laptop and walk away.

I did not do that.

Instead, I started negotiating with myself. There was still plenty of session left. More movement might come. Another good setup could appear. None of that sounds especially reckless on paper, which is partly why this kind of mistake is so common. It rarely arrives as a dramatic impulse. More often, it shows up as a small, reasonable-sounding exception to a rule you already made for yourself.

By the end of the session, I had turned a strong day into -2.37R.

That is a swing of more than  4R in the wrong direction, caused entirely by ignoring the framework that was supposed to protect the day once the target had been met.

That is the frustrating part. Not the loss itself, but how unnecessary it was.

 

 

Overconfidence rarely looks loud

While journaling the losses later that day, another pattern became clearer. Some of the decisions were sloppy. Not wildly reckless. Not completely detached from the plan. Just a little looser than they should have been.
That distinction matters.

The biggest trading mistakes are not always explosive. Sometimes they are subtle. A setup that is almost good enough. A management decision that is almost justified. A trade that gets taken not because it is clearly there, but because you have been in rhythm all week and quietly start to trust yourself a little too much.

That was probably the real issue on Thursday: overconfidence.

After several green days and a strong win streak, there was likely a slight relaxation in standards. Nothing dramatic. Just enough to matter. And in trading, just enough to matter is more than enough to do damage.

Honestly, that is one of the stranger parts of this work. Good performance can create its own risk. When you have been seeing the market well, the temptation is to believe that the next decision will also be sharp. But markets do not reward confidence on its own. They reward discipline, and discipline often means stopping while you still feel good.

Friday’s reset: protect the week

Friday felt different. Not because the market was easier, but because the lesson from Thursday was still close enough to shape the decisions.

Two strong trades appeared and both delivered more than 3R. In another mood, there might have been a temptation to squeeze more from them, trail more aggressively, and try to extract every last bit of movement available. And yes, in hindsight, they may have gone further.

But that was not the point.

After what happened the day before, the better decision was to lock in the profits and close the laptop.

Sometimes protecting the week matters more than maximising the day.

That can feel slightly unsatisfying in the moment. Traders are conditioned to think in terms of missed potential. Could it have run further? Could more have been made? Maybe. But that line of thinking is not always helpful. A well-managed green day does not become a bad one simply because a market moved further after you exited.

There is a lot of freedom in accepting that.

The real lesson from Week 11

Week 11 closed at +11.16R, which is super encouraging. But the most useful takeaway had very little to do with entries, analysis, or market reads.

It was about protecting gains.

Growing a trading account is not only about finding winning trades. It is about keeping the money when it is made. It is about refusing to turn good days into average ones, and average ones into red ones. It is about letting the positive asymmetry work in your favour over time.

That is not flashy, but it is the work.

Minimise losses. Protect gains. Let the edge compound.

The equity curve becomes more stable when losses stay contained and green days are allowed to remain green. Not every opportunity needs to be taken. Not every move needs to be captured. And not every strong day needs to be pushed further.

That last part is easy to forget. A lot of trading advice focuses on pressing advantage, scaling up, or making the most of momentum. There is a place for that. But there is also a quieter skill that matters just as much: knowing when enough is enough.

That was the lesson this week.

Not how to chase more, but how to keep what was already earned.

Minimise losses. Protect gains. Let the edge compound.

Week 10 Recap: Slow Down to Speed Up

March 2 – March 6

Week 10 started with a red day.

Not the ideal way to begin a new week or a new month. The session closed -1.36R (-$1.25K), which was a small confidence knock if I am honest. But the important thing is what happened next. I did not change the strategy. I did not try to force trades to make the loss back.

I simply stayed with the strategy and the trading plan.

What followed were four straight green days, each closing with a 100 percent win rate. Across those four sessions I put together a 10 trade win streak, bringing the week to +7.34R (+$16.6K).

The numbers are nice, but the bigger story this week was a shift in how I am reading the market.

 

R Values
R Values
$ Values
$ Values

 

A Timeframe Shift

This week I experimented trading less on the 15 minute TF for structure with 1 minute entries and began working with 1 hour structure and 5 minute entries.

The difference has been noticeable almost immediately.

Market structure simply feels more reliable. Breaks on the 5 minute and 1 hour charts carry slightly more weight due to their HTF mature. On the 1 minute chart, moves could feel a bit noisy and erratic, which made it easy to react to price movements that ultimately did not matter.

With the higher timeframe perspective, everything slows down.

Trades are now lasting four to six hours, compared with the 15 to 60 minutes that was typical before. That extra time creates a calmer environment. Instead of constantly searching for the next entry, there is space to observe price behaviour and manage trades more deliberately.

There is a trade off though. Holding positions longer means greater exposure to scheduled news events, which is something I now need to manage more carefully.

Quality Over Quantity

Another clear change is the number of trades.

When I was working from the 1 minute chart it was easy to take five to eight trades per day, which sometimes led to rushed decisions and lower quality setups.

With the new approach, opportunities appear less frequently. But when they do, the structure is clearer and the reasoning behind the trade is stronger.

Risk to reward is improving as well. Previously many trades capped out around 1.5R, but this week I captured a 4R trade, something that was far less common under the faster approach.

The result is straightforward.

Fewer trades.
Better trades.

The Key Takeaway

Week 10 reinforced an important lesson.

Speed creates noise.
Slowing down creates clarity.

The move to higher timeframe structure has changed the rhythm of the trading day. Decisions feel calmer, setups feel more intentional, and the overall environment is far less reactive.

Week 10 closed +7.34R (+$16.6K), but the more important shift is in the process.

The charts are quieter.
The decisions are calmer.
And the trades carry more weight.

Week 8 Recap: Structure, Restraint, and Quiet Progress

15th – 21st February

Week 8 felt different.

Not explosive.
Not dramatic.
Just steady.

After the turbulence of previous weeks, the focus coming into this one was simple: tighten execution, reduce noise, and behave like a professional.

The Plan

Going into the week, I set five clear rules:

  • Maximum 5 trades per day. Use the trade planner properly.

  • Only take true A+ zones.

  • Keep risk fixed at 1 percent. No oversizing. If resizing, it must be down, never up.

  • Validate structure on at least one timeframe higher before committing.

  • Reassess trailing stop placement relative to the timeframe of entry.

Nothing new. Nothing revolutionary.
Just better discipline.

The Reality

For the first time in a while, I felt genuine alignment between higher timeframe and lower timeframe structure.

Instead of marking up charts mechanically, I began to see how they overlapped.

A protected low on the higher timeframe could also serve as a shared protected low inside a lower timeframe zone. When those two lined up, the setup carried more weight. More confluence. More confidence.

That shift alone changed the quality of trades I was willing to take.

Fewer Trades, Better Decisions

I did not oversize once this week.

That matters more than it sounds.

Keeping risk fixed at 1 percent created emotional stability. There was no internal pressure to “make it back faster.” No temptation to lean heavier on volatile instruments.

Trade frequency also improved. I passed on many setups that I would have taken a few weeks ago. Patience is starting to feel less like restraint and more like strategy.

Ironically, I also identified multiple setups that went on to be great winners without me.

That is an important lesson.

There is a difference between patience and being too demanding on the pullback. If price does not retrace perfectly into your preferred level, sometimes the market simply moves without you. That is an area to refine moving forward. Not by lowering standards, but by avoiding greed in the entry refinement.

Performance Overview

In R terms, Week 8 closed +8.22R across 5 trading days.

In dollar terms, that translated to approximately +$5.18K.

After a difficult Week 7, that kind of rebound feels significant. Not because of the number itself, but because of how it was achieved.

  • No oversized positions

  • Reduced trade count

  • Better structural alignment

  • Cleaner execution

The process improved first. The results followed.

That is the order it should always be in.

Exit Strategy Experiments

One of the most valuable developments this week has been the start of structured exit testing.

I’ve begun comparing:

  • Fixed 1R

  • Partials

  • 1.5R targets

  • Full runners

  • Trailing scenarios

Instead of guessing, I’m running the data.

The goal is not to find the most exciting outcome.
It is to find the most consistent, repeatable one.

Over time, this testing should remove another layer of emotional decision making. Exits should be predefined, not improvised.

Bonus: A Milestone

Quietly, and slightly unbelievably, I passed three prop firm challenges this week.

Not one.
Not two.
Three.

Current funded capital now sits at $250K.

That is real progress.

It is easy to get distracted by daily PnL swings, but zooming out shows something else entirely. Structure is improving. Risk management is tightening. Emotional reactions are decreasing.

Funding is increasing.

The Bigger Picture

Week 8 was not about chasing big numbers.

It was about:

  • Respecting higher timeframe structure

  • Trusting confluence

  • Keeping risk consistent

  • Letting the edge play out

Ordinary discipline produced extraordinary stability.

And that is the direction this project needs to continue.

Trade well. Stay ordinary.

Why your decision-making gets worse as the trading day goes on

There is solid science behind the idea that your ability to make good decisions changes across the day. It is one of the most studied topics in psychology, behavioural economics, and neuroscience.

Put simply:

  • The brain has limited self-regulation resources
  • Using them repeatedly makes them temporarily weaker
  • Fatigue changes risk perception and impulse control

For traders, that is not abstract theory. That is revenge trading. That is FOMO. That is dropping your entry standard from A+ to “this will do.”

Let’s unpack it.

Ego Depletion and Decision Fatigue

Researchers like Roy Baumeister proposed that willpower and disciplined thinking draw from a finite mental resource.

Every act of:

  • Resisting impulse
  • Analysing uncertainty
  • Managing emotion
  • Waiting for confirmation
  • Passing on a mediocre setup

…uses some of that fuel.

As the day progresses, the tank runs lower. When depleted, people tend to:

  • Choose easier options
  • Avoid complex thinking
  • Act more emotionally
  • Seek immediate reward
  • Abandon previously agreed rules

Not because they want to. Because the brain is tired. In trading terms, that shift is subtle but dangerous.

An A+ setup becomes an A.

An A becomes a B+.

A B+ becomes “close enough.”

And “close enough” is where consistency dies.

System 1 vs System 2

In Thinking, Fast and Slow, psychologist Daniel Kahneman describes two modes of thinking:

System 1 → fast, automatic, emotional

System 2 → slow, effortful, logical

Trading well requires System 2.

Waiting. Calculating. Filtering. Ignoring noise.

But as mental energy drops, the brain defaults to System 1.

Which means later in the session you are more likely to:

  • Revenge trade after a loss
  • Close winners early out of fear
  • Oversize to “make it back”
  • Ignore missing confirmation
  • Rationalise weak entries

It feels justified in the moment.

It rarely is.

The Judge Study

One of the most famous demonstrations of decision fatigue looked at Israeli judges.

Researchers found:

  • Early in the day → more thoughtful, favourable rulings
  • Right before breaks → harsher, default decisions
  • After food and rest → decision quality improved again

Judgement changed based on mental fatigue.

Not morality. Not intelligence. Not experience.

Energy.

Now apply that to a trader four hours into screen time, three trades in, slightly red, watching price move without them.

The conditions are perfect for a poor decision.

What Happens Biologically?

As cognitive load builds:

  • Attention declines
  • Emotional regulation weakens
  • The prefrontal cortex (responsible for discipline and planning) becomes less effective
  • Impulse systems become louder

So discipline literally becomes harder.

You do not suddenly become reckless.

You become slightly less precise.

And in trading, slight erosion compounds.

How This Shows Up On Your Chart

This is what mental fatigue looks like in practice:

  • Patience drops
  • Rule adherence softens
  • Risk taking increases
  • Urgency appears where none exists
  • Entry standards slip

You do not say, “I am fatigued.”

You say:

“Maybe this one is ok.”

That sentence has probably cost more traders money than any indicator ever has.

The Uncomfortable Truth

By the time most traders take their worst trade…

They are already mentally depleted.

It is rarely the first trade of the day.

It is often the third.

Or the one taken after trying to claw back -2R.

Not a strategy problem.

An energy problem.

How Professionals Protect Themselves

Professionals do not rely on motivation.

They design around biology.

They:

  • Limit decisions per day
  • Use a daily trading planner.
  • Pre-plan actions before the session
  • Use checklists
  • Automate exits where possible
  • Stop at fixed loss limits
  • Trade fewer, higher quality opportunities

They reduce how often System 2 has to fire.

They preserve decision energy for when it matters most.

Why This Matters If You’re Building Consistency

If you are building a structured, rules-based approach to trading, this is gold.

Performance deterioration is often biological, not intellectual.

You do not need more knowledge.

You need fewer decisions.

Fewer trades.

Higher standards.

Defined stop times.

Hard daily limits.

Because consistency is not just about strategy.

It is about protecting your brain from itself.

Week 7 Recap: Digging the Hole Deeper

Week 7. 8th to 14th February.

It started badly.

If I’m honest, I think I came into the week trying to play catch up after the turbulence the week before. That mindset alone is usually a warning sign. After a couple of early Monday morning losses took me to -2R for the day before the afternoon, I didn’t accept it. I tried to turn it around in the afternoon session

Classic mistake.

Instead of protecting capital, I dug the hole deeper.

On the R metrics the damage was clear. The dollar screenshot makes it feel even worse, but the story is the same in both. This wasn’t a market problem. It was a discipline problem.

 

 

What Went Wrong

The biggest issue was selection. I drifted away from A+ zones and started taking trades that were “technically valid” but not truly aligned with my core model.

My flip positioning  continue to give mixed results. Especially on the 1-minute timeframe. The problem is obvious when I zoom out. What looks like structure on the lower timeframe often disappears on the 2–5 minute chart.

If it looks like one continuous leg down on the higher timeframe, that “flip” I’ve chosen as my critical entry point is probably weak. I’ve been placing trades into developing structure instead of waiting for it to form properly. The result? Stops get hit as the higher timeframe move continues exactly as it should, barely recognising my flip was there

I started taking trades that were “technically valid” but not truly aligned with my core model.

Another trend I’ve noticed is slight oversizing on expensive instruments like DAX and Silver. Subconsciously I’m reaching for slightly bigger wins. That breaks the consistency of 1 percent risk per trade and adds unnecessary pressure.

I also need to review my trailing stop logic. I’ve been moving stops to what I think are structural lows, only to realise later that they aren’t real structure when viewed on a slightly higher timeframe. Same principe mistake as intentioned above on flips placement. That could explain why I’m getting stopped out before the move continues back in my desired direction. Sometimes hitting final TP to my frustration

I’ve also considered  the possibility of “mini zones” on very low timeframes, 15 or 30 seconds, that remain unmitigated. Price may simply be returning to claim those zones before continuing. Lesson = If I’m going to trail, it has to respect the timeframe that justified the trade in the first place.

Variance exists in the market. It shouldn’t exist in your discipline.

The Plan

Some clear adjustments going into next week:

  • Reduce trades. Maximum 5 per day. I have a trade planner. Now I need to stick to it.
  • Focus on true A+ zone selection.
  • Keep risk consistent at 1 percent. No oversizing on volatile or expensive instruments. If I’m going to resize, let it be down, not up.
  • Validate structure on at least one timeframe higher before committing.
  • Reassess trailing stop placement relative to the timeframe of entry.

It’s hard to reconcile hard weeks like this with some recent + 13R weeks. But that’s trading. Variance exists in the market. It shouldn’t exist in your discipline.

The difference between a temporary drawdown and a larger problem is how quickly you diagnose and correct.

On Monday in the US the markets are closed due to public holiday. Liquidity will likely be slower across the board. That’s fine. It’s a good opportunity to spend some quality time reviewing every loss from this week properly and build a structured plan for Tuesday onwards.

This week was painful. But it was clear.

And clear mistakes are fixable.

Month 1 Recap : What Real Progress Actually Looks Like

This is the first post in a new monthly series where I share my real trading results.

Not highlights. Not best days only. Not a sales pitch.

Just the numbers, the behaviour behind them, and what I am learning as I go.

The aim is simple. To track progress over time, stay accountable to my own rules, and hopefully provide something more realistic than the polished versions of trading that usually get shared.

This is Month 1.

How to Read the Images

Before getting into the results, a quick note on how to interpret the screenshots.

Each day shows both R and dollar PnL.
R measures performance relative to risk. Dollars show the real-world impact of those decisions.

Green and red days are not the story on their own. What matters more is trade count, win rate, and how losses behave when things are not going well.

If you are new to this, think of R as the decision-making lens, and dollars as the consequence.

Both matter, but they play different roles.

R Values
R Values
$ Values
$ Values

Why I Still Think in R First

R remains my primary metric because it keeps the focus on process rather than outcome.

It standardises risk, removes position size bias, and makes performance comparable across days, weeks, and months. A +3R day achieved cleanly is far more useful information than a random dollar figure taken out of context.

The dollar view exists to keep things honest. It reminds me that risk is real and that behaviour has consequences. But it is not what drives decisions in the moment.

R governs the process. Dollars reflect the result.

The worst red days tend to follow periods of over-engagement, often driven by trying to make something back within the same session.

The Big Picture

This month was uneven, but instructive.

Firstly, I only started journalling from Monday the 12th. The 19th was a stock market holiday, and I took the 26th off to attend a person training course. So this was not a full, uninterrupted trading month.

Even so, clear patterns emerged.

There was one difficult drawdown week early on, followed by two strong weeks where execution, discipline, and consistency improved noticeably. The contrast between those periods is the most important takeaway from this review.

The Difficult Start

Week 3 finished down -6.17R, or roughly -$1.6K.

More important than the number is how it happened.

This was before I was properly journalling, and it shows. Win rates were low, trade counts were high, and patience was thin. Losses clustered, not because the strategy stopped working, but because behaviour slipped.

There was some overtrading, some forcing, and a tendency to try to recover losses within the same session. In hindsight, the red days were not surprising.

At the time it felt frustrating. In review, it feels useful.

What Changed

From the 12th onwards, things began to stabilise.

Not perfectly, and not immediately, but enough to notice. Journalling introduced friction. It forced me to slow down, articulate reasons for entries, and reflect on exits rather than rushing to the next setup.

Even later red days still finished negative, but the damage was contained. Losses did not spiral, and trade behaviour stayed more deliberate.

That shift alone feels like progress.

The Stronger Weeks

Weeks 4 and 5 were the most encouraging.

Together they produced +23.79R, or just over $24K, with win rates regularly in the 60 to 80 percent range. These were not single outsized trades or lucky spikes. They came from multiple trades executed reasonably well, without stretching size or forcing targets.

What stood out most was not the PnL, but how repeatable those sessions felt. The process was clearer, entries were more selective, and exits were more disciplined.

When I slow down, the edge shows up.

A Few Honest Observations

One ongoing issue is trade volume.

On several green days I exceeded my own five trades per day rule. It worked out this time, but that does not make it good behaviour. The data suggests my best days tend to come from fewer, higher-quality trades rather than maximum participation.

Another clear pattern is how losses cluster. The worst red days tend to follow periods of over-engagement, often driven by trying to make something back within the same session.

Again, this is behavioural, not technical.

Common Misreads of the Dollar View

A few things are worth addressing directly.

This was not a straight line up.
The dollar results reflect both good weeks and difficult ones.

The strong days did not come from oversized risk.
Position sizing stayed consistent. The gains came from execution, not leverage.

The red weeks were not failures.
They were part of the learning curve, and they exposed issues that are now being addressed.

If anything, the dollar view reinforces why discipline matters. Behaviour shows up very quickly when the numbers are real.

What This Month Reinforced

This first month made a few things very clear.

  • Journalling improves execution.
  • Slowing down improves win rate.
  • Drawdowns are usually behavioural.
  • Consistency comes from repetition, not intensity.

None of that is exciting. All of it matters.

Why I’m Sharing This

I’m sharing these posts partly for accountability, but also because trading often lacks transparency.

Most people only ever see the best days or the biggest months. Real progress looks different. It includes red weeks, missed sessions, rule breaks, and gradual improvement rather than sudden breakthroughs.

If this series shows anything over time, I hope it is that progress is possible without hype, without shortcuts, and without pretending the hard parts do not exist.

This was Month 1.

On to the next, with fewer trades, better notes, and more patience.