An educational #Thread on how 1 can identify "Freakout"(Fake Breakout) explained with practical e.g's so that every1 can understand.

Identifying Breakout is not a big challenge but exiting it at the right time if it "fails" with minor loss is imp. which 90% people don't do.

1/n

1st lets learn how to judge that the Breakout is not sustaining & time to exit the trade has come for once.

With digital content available identifying #Stocks breaking resistance is not a big task but exiting these trades timely if they go against us is the most imp. thing.

2/n
Let's understand the abv with recent e.g of USDINR. It gave a breakout abv 75.6 after 8 months. Though we saw a mild upmove after that but it drastically failed& cmp is 74.5.

Now if some1 bought on breakout then usually most will hold it till now or exit at cmp in distress.

3/n
If any of the following 2 criteria's match then 1 should exit the trade.

* Stock makes a LowerLow, LowerHigh consecutively for 2 days.
* It breaks the low of breakout candle & sustains for 1 day.

USDINR made a LL,LH for 2 days on 17th,20th Dec so exit was at 75.73 on 20th.

4/n
Similar e.g is Bharti which gave a ATH, consolidation breakout on 23rd nov abv 745. The Breakout couldn't sustain & cmp is 684.

Ideal exit was on 29th Nov at 739 when it broke the breakout candle low of 733 & sustained below it on 29th. So it fulfilled 2nd criteria of exit.

5/n
The same theory is valid even for breakdowns which can be seen in Cipla where it broke 8 months tight range on 17th Dec & on 18th broke the breakdown high.

Hence it met the 2nd criteria of sustaining abv Breakdown high & immediately 1 should have exited shorts, built longs.

6/n
The most recent e.g 1 can see is Dow jones which gave a breakout on 29th. However on friday it has made a LH, LL formation which isn't good & if it again makes it on Mon then 1 should exit longs taken on the basis of the breakout on thurs.

So let's watch next week closely.

7/n
"No Capital No Capital Markets" - The above thread is dedicated to same.

1 can always renter such trades but exiting them timely is very imp. & my personal experience says that deciding exiting trades criteria, time is where 90% fail.

THE END.

Feedbacks, views are appreciated.

More from Screeners

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?