How to set Small Stop loss ??
Please👇
1️⃣ If we trade on Monthly chart - stop loss set on weekly lower low
2️⃣ If we trade on Weekly chart than SL on Daily LL
3️⃣ Daily chart - Hourly LL
4️⃣ Hourly chart - 15 minutes LL
5️⃣ 15 minutes chart - 5 minutes LL
More from jitu
More from Stoploss
Retailers late sellers who place sl at visual reference levels are thrown out. Avoid placing sl at same location were retailers place stoploss https://t.co/qctgpFYLnK

This is the reason for retailers stoploss. Check it out \U0001f447 https://t.co/fnHPgzCCVn pic.twitter.com/njvqgM9PI3
— Learn to Trade (@learntotrade365) July 28, 2021
Forgot to mention one point. How to trail profits in Breakout trades.
One of the best way that I know is ATR based trailing.
Here is an example https://t.co/BTATx5fyW6
One of the best way that I know is ATR based trailing.
Here is an example https://t.co/BTATx5fyW6
An example of ATR based TSL.
— Professor (@DillikiBiili) April 9, 2021
SL for coming candle is Low of the just completed candle - ATR of previous candle. Chart is self explanatory. https://t.co/D95iv4t5j6 pic.twitter.com/e8BkO2j5rn
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?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
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?