Tag Archive for: Trading Plan

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 9 Recap: A Good Loss

23rd – 27th February

Week 9 was a quieter week. Not dramatic. Not explosive. Just controlled.

Coming into it, the focus was very specific. I wanted to double down on discipline. That meant sticking to my trading planner rules without exception:

  • Maximum 5 trades per day
  • Maximum loss of 2R
  • Profit target of 2R
  • No deviation from 1 percent risk

In terms of execution, this was genuinely an A+ week. I followed the rules. I did not oversize. I did not chase. I did not break daily limits out of frustration or excitement. That might sound basic, but consistency in rule adherence is still the foundation of everything.

Now for the honest part.

The week closed slightly red at -0.71R.

There is no dressing that up. It was a losing week. But context matters. The loss was small. It was contained. It stayed well within predefined limits. That is what risk management is supposed to do.

If the model is working correctly, losing weeks will happen. The key is ensuring they are controlled, while winning weeks are allowed to expand.

If the model is working correctly, losing weeks will happen. The key is ensuring they are controlled, while winning weeks are allowed to expand. By that definition, this was what I would call a good loss.

What makes it more interesting is that I actually had more wins than losses. Six wins. Five losses. A 54.55 percent win rate.

Accuracy was not the issue.

The issue was upside. Many of the winning trades were under 1R. There were fewer runners. Without extended moves, the expectancy tightens quickly. When you cap downside effectively but fail to capture larger upside, the edge compresses.

That leads directly into the work I am doing behind the scenes.

Exit strategy testing continues. I am comparing different models, including fixed targets, partials, extended targets, and trailing approaches. Some early patterns are already emerging, but it is still too soon to draw firm conclusions.

Right now the objective is simple:

  • Log every trade consistently
  • Apply the same rules each session
  • Remove discretion from exits where possible
  • Build a meaningful sample size

Once I have tracked around 50-100 trades under consistent conditions, the data will start to speak clearly and I’m looking forward to sharing.

Week 9 was not about big numbers. It was about professional behaviour. The PnL was slightly red. The execution was green.

Over time, that combination is what compounds.

Which timeframe is the best to trade?

It is one of the most common questions in trading.

Should you trade the 1 minute?

The 15 minute?

The 4 hour?

The Daily?

The honest answer is simple.

Any timeframe works.

Market structure is fractal. A break of structure on the 1 minute behaves the same way as a break of structure on the 4 hour. Pullbacks, expansions, premium and discount all exist on every chart.

The difference is not validity.

It is speed.

Lower timeframes move faster.

Higher timeframes move slower.

But structurally, they follow the same logic.

So the real question is not which single timeframe is best.

The better question is which timeframe pairing makes sense.

Timeframes Work in Pairs

Trading from a single timeframe often creates blind spots.

You either have context with no precision, or precision with no context.

The solution is pairing.

One timeframe defines intent.

The other defines execution.

For example:

  • 15m defines structure and location
  • 1m confirms entries

Or:

  • 1H defines structure
  • 5m confirms entries

Or:

  • 4H defines structure
  • 15m confirms entries

The timeframe itself is not special.

The relationship between them is.

The 12 to 16x Rule

A practical guideline is to keep your timeframe separation in the 12 to 16x range.

Examples:

  • 1H to 5m equals 12x
  • 15m to 1m equals 15x
  • 4H to 15m equals 16x

This range creates a meaningful shift in perspective without disconnecting execution from intent.

If timeframes are too close, you are looking at almost the same structure twice.

If they are too far apart, the lower timeframe flips repeatedly while the higher timeframe barely moves.

The gap becomes unstable.

The 12 to 16x range keeps the structure aligned.

So What Is the Best Timeframe to Trade?

The best timeframe is the one that:

  • Matches your lifestyle
  • Matches your psychological tolerance
  • Matches your ability to focus
  • Can be paired properly with a higher timeframe

There is nothing magical about the 1 minute, the 15 minute, or the 4 hour.

They all work.

What matters is:

  • Clear role separation
  • Proper ratio
  • Structural consistency

Choose a pairing.

Define the roles.

Keep the ratio consistent.

The timeframe is not the edge.

Structure is.

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.

The hardest skill in trading is knowing when you’re done for the day.

I used to think the hard part of trading was finding good entries.

It isn’t.

The hardest part is knowing when to stop.

Most of my worst trading days didn’t start badly. They started fine. A clean first trade. Sometimes even a small win. Enough to feel engaged, alert, involved.

And then that quiet thought appears.

There’s probably another one.

Sometimes the trigger is a loss. You feel sharp, focused, convinced you can get it back. Other times it’s a win. Confidence creeps in. You feel aligned with the market, like you’ve found the rhythm.

Both states are dangerous.

The market doesn’t know how your day is going. It doesn’t care if you’re up, down, or flat. Every trade is a new decision, but your state of mind carries forward whether you want it to or not.

What I eventually realised is this: stopping isn’t about discipline. It’s about self-awareness.

The real question isn’t whether another setup exists. It’s whether I’m still trading the plan, or trading the emotional residue of the last trade.

Some days I stop after one trade. Not because the day is “done,” but because I am. Focus softens. Patience shortens. I start justifying trades that look acceptable rather than obvious.

That shift is subtle. And once it happens, it rarely reverses.

I still have clear rules for entries. But I also have rules for exiting the day. Daily loss limits. Maximum number of trades. And one rule that’s harder to quantify but easier to feel.

My emotional tone.

If I feel rushed, reactive, or slightly irritated, I’m finished. Even if the chart still looks clean. Especially if it does.

That’s the uncomfortable truth most traders avoid. Overtrading usually doesn’t come from desperation alone. It comes after we’ve already had enough. Enough information. Enough opportunity. Enough exposure.

We just don’t want to admit it.

The best traders I know don’t trade more. They trade less. They treat mental capital as something that can be depleted, not ignored. Protecting it matters more than squeezing another trade out of the session.

Some of my most profitable weeks include days where I stopped before noon. No revenge trades. No boredom trades. No “just one more” because price happened to be moving.

Walking away early never feels productive. It feels unfinished. Like leaving something on the table.

But trading isn’t about finishing the day. It’s about returning tomorrow with clarity intact.

Knowing when you’re done for the day won’t show up on a chart. There’s no indicator for it. But it’s one of the few skills in trading that compounds quietly, day after day.

And once you learn it, everything else gets easier.