Silver futures, just after 10am London time. The 1-minute chart had been grinding lower into the session. Bearish bias was there on the higher timeframes, and the indicator was painting a five-point sequence I’ve now seen play out enough times to know what to look for.

The trade ran 1.58R with effectively zero drawdown.

But the result isn’t the point. The setup is. Most sequences that print on the indicator are fine. They work often enough. The A+ ones look different, and once you’ve watched a few play out, you stop being willing to risk real money on the average ones.

Here’s what made this one A+, walking through it in roughly the order it printed.

The geometry has to make sense first

Before anything else, I’m looking at the distance between Step 3 and Step 5.

Step 3 is the swing low we want to see break out of the zone. Step 5 is the deeper swing low that completes the bearish structure, the furthest point from the zone before price heads back toward our liquidity at Step 4. A short distance between (3) and (5) means the pullback is shallow and the R:R gets compressed before you’ve even started.

This trade had room. Step 5 sat a meaningful distance below Step 3, which meant any pullback back up into Step 4 had to be substantial. A substantial pullback means a deeper entry, a tighter stop relative to the target, and a setup that’s worth taking risk on. If the geometry’s wrong, nothing else on the chart matters.

The depth of the Step 4 tap

The second filter is how price interacts with the Step 4 zone.

What I want to see is a clean sweep of (4) and an immediate rejection, not a deep mitigation well beyond (4). On this trade, price came back into the zone, wicked (4), and turned. That’s the indicator’s job, to observe, track and display these sequences as they play out, and it did it.

What made it A+ rather than just acceptable was what other confluences we could observe around that tap. The rejection came off a bearish fair value gap (FVG), an unfilled imbalance left by an earlier full-bodied bearish candle. So it wasn’t just price sweeping the liquidity at (4) and turning. It was price sweeping liquidity, hitting fresh bearish imbalance from a candle that had real intent behind it, and refusing to push through.

That’s not a coincidence. That’s sellers showing up exactly where you’d expect them to.

The Flip and what sits around it

The Flip is my entry trigger, the moment the indicator confirms a structural break in the direction of the original bias. On its own, it’s a signal. With the right context around it, it’s a different category of signal.

What I want to see around The Flip

Two things gave this one extra weight.

First, fresh bearish FVGs started forming right after The Flip. Multiple of them. That tells me the move down isn’t a one-candle reaction, it’s a sequence with momentum behind it. Each new FVG is an unfilled gap, and unfilled gaps are evidence that price is moving with intent rather than chopping.

Second, The Flip printed below both the 50 and 100 EMA. This one’s a hard filter for me in bearish setups, and I’ve built it directly into the indicator. If The Flip is above the 50 EMA, I’m probably looking at a counter-trend reversal, and counter-trend trades are a different beast. Below the 50 EMA, in an already bearish higher-timeframe context, means I’m taking continuation in the direction of the trend. The old adage holds up here, the trend is your friend, and on this setup everything was pointing the same way.

Execution becomes easy when the setup is right

Here’s the part I want to be honest about. When the setup is genuinely A+, execution stops being the hard part.

On this trade, I set my entry exactly on the flip line. There was zero drawdown. Not “almost zero,” literally none, because price had already committed to the move before The Flip printed, and the entry sat at the boundary of that commitment.

When price pushed close to 1R, I moved my stop to break even. That’s the rule, and it didn’t require any negotiation with myself. Target was Step 5, same as always.

After a minor pullback (the kind that always shows up and always feels worse than it is), price continued down. Two more fresh bearish FVGs formed on the way. TP hit cleanly.

The trade took care of itself, because everything that needed to be true at entry was already true.

A+ setups are filters, not formulas

The reason I keep using the phrase A+ instead of just “valid” is that the indicator will give you valid signals all day long. A large percentage of them will work. The job isn’t to take all of them.

The job is to wait for the ones where the geometry, the conditions of the sweep, the quality of the rejection, the freshness of the imbalance, and the EMA position all line up the same way.

You won’t get many of these every session, sometimes only 1 or 2 a week.

That’s fine. The discipline is in the waiting, not the trading.