r/technical-analysis

Been keeping an eye on $BDL today, nice move up. It broke through the $50 level earlier, hit a high of $50.04. I'm curious to see if it can hold above that area on a retest, or if it will get rejected. If it pulls back below $49.50 and stays there, that'd definitely make me reassess any short-term bullish lean.

หลายคนมักโฟกัสแค่จุดเข้าจุดออก แต่ลืมเรื่อง Position Sizing ที่สำคัญไม่แพ้กัน

หัวใจคือการควบคุมความเสี่ยงต่อการเทรดแต่ละครั้ง ถ้าเรากำหนดความเสี่ยง เช่น 1% ของพอร์ต ไม่ว่ากราฟจะสวยแค่ไหน ถ้า stop loss ไกลเกินกว่าจะรับได้ตามขนาด position ที่เหมาะสม เราก็ต้องลดขนาดลง หรือไม่เทรดเลย

ยกตัวอย่างง่ายๆ ถ้าพอร์ต 100,000 บาท ความเสี่ยง 1% คือ 1,000 บาท ถ้าจุด stop ของ $TOP ที่ 11.34 เราเข้าที่ 11.52 ระยะห่างคือ 0.18 บาท เราก็เทรดได้แค่ 1000 / 0.18 = 5,555 หุ้น ไม่ใช่ทุ่มทั้งหมด

การทำแบบนี้ช่วยให้เราอยู่รอดในตลาดได้นานขึ้น

That bounce in $OIL from the earlier lows around 28.10 has been fairly quick. I'm looking at the 28.50 area as a potential short-term resistance point. It was a level that held a few times last week as minor support before the break down, and now it could flip to resistance on this retracement. My concern is if we clear 28.50 convincingly on decent volume, which would invalidate that short-term bear scenario for me, and I'd then be looking higher towards 29.00. For now, it's about seeing if this momentum holds or fades into that old level.

Been keeping an eye on $EURCHF today, particularly after the recent dip. It's currently hovering around 0.93888, after seeing a low around 0.93685 earlier. What's catching my attention is how it's reacting to this range after breaking below 0.9400.

From a technical perspective, I'm looking at two main scenarios here. We could be seeing a potential bounce off what appears to be a historical support area around the 0.9370-0.9380 zone, especially if it can maintain above today's low. If it consolidates here and starts pushing higher, particularly if we get a sustained move back above 0.9390, then a retest of the 0.9400-0.9410 area seems plausible. However, the alternative, and the risk that invalidates the bounce idea, is if it fails to hold these current levels and we see a clear break and sustained price action below 0.93685. That would suggest further downside momentum and could open the door for a move towards the 0.9350 region. Just sharing my current read on the chart.

I'm keeping a close eye on $EM around this 1.195 level. It's been acting as a pretty significant pivot point lately, and seeing it back here after testing 1.2 earlier today makes me think we're at a bit of an inflection point. If we can see a clean break and hold above 1.195, I'd be looking for a potential move higher, maybe retesting that 1.2 area again. The risk, for me, is if we get a false breakout above 1.195 followed by a quick rejection back below. That would suggest a fade is more likely and could open the door for a move back down towards the lower end of today's range, potentially 1.19. Just my thoughts, no crystal ball here.

Saw some chatter about "averaging down" after a loss. Look, it's a tempting strategy when a stock dips, like if you'd bought $ASML at 1890 and saw it hit 1860. The idea is you buy more at a lower price, reducing your average cost per share, so you break even faster when it recovers. Sounds good in theory.

Problem is, it assumes the dip is temporary and the asset will recover. What if it's not? Averaging down on a fundamentally broken stock or a falling knife like $EURCHF has been for some, just digs you into a deeper hole. You're effectively doubling down on a losing bet. Better to cut losses and redeploy capital elsewhere than to pour good money after bad on a trade that's already gone against you. It's about preserving capital, not stubbornness.

A lot of new traders focus on the 'what' to trade and the 'when' to enter, but position sizing often gets glossed over, and that's a mistake. It's not just about how many shares you buy; it's a critical risk management tool. Your position size should always be determined by your stop-loss and your maximum acceptable risk per trade, not just your available capital. For instance, if you're risking 1% of your account and your stop on $ASML is set to give you a $50 loss per share, you'd buy fewer shares than if that stop was only $10 away. Get this wrong, and even a solid trading strategy will blow up your account eventually.

I've been keeping an eye on $ASML, and it's been interesting to see it bounce around the 1880-1890 zone. Today's action pushing towards 1883.12, after a dip to 1860.56, puts it right back into that area. For me, the key is whether it can decisively break and hold above the 1890-1895 level on some decent volume. If it consolidates above that, we might see it test higher. The risk to this scenario, as I see it, would be a failed breakout and a move back down towards the 1860s, potentially even dipping to the 1850 area if the broader market loses steam. It's a tricky spot, but definitely one to watch for a clearer directional signal.

Seems $XOP finally broke past that 180 resistance today, now trading around 180.49. I'm looking to see if it can hold above that level, or if we get a retest of 179 before any further upside. A clear move back below 178 would invalidate this recent momentum for me.

Been looking at $EM today, specifically that 1.195 level. It seems to have held pretty firm there after the overnight session, trading tightly within 1.195-1.2. I'm wondering if this 1.195 area is shaping up to be a short-term floor, given the intraday range. The risk, of course, is a clear break below 1.195. If that happens convincingly on decent volume, I'd have to reconsider this as support and potentially look for the next leg down. It feels like a pivotal point right now, and I'll be watching how it reacts if it retests that low.

The ascending triangle is a fairly common continuation pattern observed on charts, characterized by a flat resistance line and a rising trendline formed by higher lows. For instance, on the $EURCAD daily, if you saw price repeatedly testing 1.60882 while bouncing off an upward sloping support, that would be a classic setup. The general idea is that buyers are gradually gaining strength, pushing lows higher, and eventually, a breakout above the flat resistance is anticipated. Volume often diminishes during the formation and then picks up on the breakout, which provides some confirmation. These don't always play out perfectly, of course, sometimes they fail and reverse.

Been keeping an eye on $CRV today, seems to be hovering right around that 0.2429 mark. I'm seeing a potential for it to bounce off this level, which has acted as a decent floor a few times in the past. If it holds, we might see it retest 0.2500, maybe even push towards 0.2600 if there's any real momentum.

The downside, of course, is if it breaks convincingly below 0.2400. That would invalidate my current thinking and likely send it looking for new lows, probably somewhere around 0.2350 or lower. Not saying it's a certainty, just what I'm seeing on my charts and trying to anticipate. Always a guessing game, isn't it?

Been watching $EMXC quite closely this week. It had a strong move up from the mid-90s a couple of weeks ago, peaking around the 98.12 level yesterday before pulling back. What's catching my eye now is how it's interacting with the 96.865 - 97.00 area. This zone was pretty significant resistance back in late April, early May. We saw multiple rejections there before it finally broke through.

Now, it seems to be retesting that zone from above. The low yesterday was 96.865, and it bounced. Today, it's hovering right around there again. If this level truly holds as new support, then we could see another push higher, perhaps towards the 98.12 high again, and potentially beyond. The risk here, in my view, would be a clean break and daily close below 96.80. If that happens, then the prior resistance hasn't really turned into solid support, and we might be looking at a deeper retracement, possibly back towards the 95 handle. Just my observations for now.

ส่วนตัวมองว่า $US30 ที่เทรดเหนือ 53700+ ตอนนี้กำลังทดสอบแนวรับที่น่าสนใจแถวๆ 53600-53650

ถ้าหลุดตรงนี้และปิดต่ำกว่า 53600 โดยเฉพาะถ้ามี momentum ก็คงต้องปรับมุมมองหาแนวรับถัดไป. แต่ถ้ายังยืนได้ อาจเห็นการรีบาวด์สั้นๆ

A pennant, much like a flag, is a continuation pattern that signals a brief consolidation before the prior trend resumes. You typically see a sharp price move, followed by a period of converging trendlines forming a small symmetrical triangle, and then a breakout in the direction of the initial move. For instance, if $US30 was trending upwards and then formed a pennant between, say, 53700 and 53800 before breaking higher, that would be a classic bullish pennant. The target is often estimated by measuring the pole of the initial move and projecting it from the breakout point.

Hey everyone,

Been keeping a close eye on $EM this week, and the price action around the 1.20 level is starting to look interesting. We hit 1.20 earlier today, after a previous bounce off that same level a couple of days ago. It's almost looking like a potential double top formation could be setting up on the daily chart, which would be a pretty significant resistance area if it holds.

My thinking is that if $EM fails to break convincingly above 1.20 and we see a rejection, especially on higher volume, it could signal a decent retracement. The risk, of course, is if we get a strong close above 1.20, say on a 4-hour or daily candle. That would invalidate the double top scenario for me, and I'd be looking for continuation towards the next resistance up around 1.22. Just putting it out there to see if anyone else is seeing the same thing or has a different perspective.

Alright, listen up. Too many of you are thinking position sizing is just a percentage of your total account. That's amateur hour. True position sizing also factors in your actual stop-loss distance, in pips or points, and your chosen risk per trade, say 1% of your capital. So, if you're risking 1% of a $10,000 account, that's $100. If your stop for a $EURCAD long is 50 pips below your entry, you calculate how many lots you can take so that 50-pip move equals your $100 risk. Don't overcomplicate it, but don't just blindly allocate capital either. It's about protecting your downside on every single trade based on your specific stop placement, not just a flat percentage of your entire account.

Alright folks, let's talk about something fundamental: risk-reward. It's not about being right all the time; it's about making sure that when you are right, the profit outweighs your potential loss. Say you're looking at $ETHUSD around 1881.68. If your analysis suggests a move to 1950, but a break below 1860 invalidates your thesis, you're risking 21.68 points to potentially gain 68.32 points. That's roughly a 1:3 risk-reward ratio, meaning for every dollar you risk, you stand to make three.

Having a positive risk-reward ratio on your trades is crucial because it allows you to be wrong more often than you're right and still be profitable over the long run. If your win rate is 50% and your average risk-reward is 1:2, you're set up for success. It's a key piece of the puzzle, even more so than nailing every single entry.

That move on $SI today has been pretty dramatic, hitting 21.01. I'm watching to see if it can consolidate above 20.50; a solid rejection back under that level would make me question if this move has any real legs.

Been watching $ETHUSD closely around this $1880 area. It's been range-bound for a bit now, consolidating after that earlier move up. I'm seeing decent support holding around the 1870-1880 zone, with resistance firmly planted around 1900-1910. If we manage to break cleanly above that upper range, especially on some volume, it could suggest another leg up. The risk to that, of course, is a break down below 1870, which would likely send it looking for the next support lower.

It's a waiting game now, which can be mind-numbing, but often the most telling. No fireworks yet, just steady observation.

Alright, so everyone talks about risking 1-2% of your capital per trade. That's fine as a starting point, but it's often oversimplified. It's not just about what percentage of your account you're willing to lose if the trade goes south; it's about how much dollar value that translates into, and then backing into the number of units you can afford to trade given your stop loss.

Let's say you have a $10,000 account and decide you'll risk 1% per trade. That means your maximum loss on any single trade is $100. Now, how do you determine your position size for something like $CORN, currently trading around 18.26? If you set your stop loss at 18.00, your potential loss per unit is $0.26. To figure out how many units you can buy, you take your maximum risk ($100) and divide it by your per-unit risk ($0.26). So, $100 / $0.26 = approximately 384 units of $CORN. This ensures that even if $CORN hits your stop at 18.00, you've only lost your predetermined $100.

It’s a crucial distinction because simply buying a fixed number of units, regardless of where your stop is placed, can lead to wildly inconsistent risk profiles. A tighter stop means you can take a larger position size for the same dollar risk, and vice versa. It’s a core component of managing drawdowns and staying in the game.

We often talk about 'support levels' as if they're impenetrable walls, but think of them more like speed bumps on a highway. Price hits them, might slow down, even bounce a bit, but if there's enough selling pressure, it'll roll right over. For example, watching $LUNA today, it found support around $1.26 earlier, bounced to $1.31, but that doesn't guarantee it's the new floor; it just indicates where buyers initially stepped in. It's an area where buying interest has historically outweighed selling, not a mystical barrier.

Looking at $CSPR's recent action, specifically between the 6.605 low and the 6.785 high, we're seeing the makings of an ascending triangle. This pattern, generally considered bullish, features a flat resistance level (here, around 6.78) and a rising trendline connecting higher lows. The expectation is a breakout above resistance once enough buying pressure accumulates, but remember, false breakouts are the market's way of keeping us humble.

Noticing $LUNA respecting that 1.26 level pretty hard today. It bounced off it earlier and is now pushing back up towards 1.31. If it can hold above 1.26, we might see some further upside, but a clean break below 1.26 would definitely invalidate that idea for me, and I'd be out.

Still seeing $LDO respect the 0.30 region; a sustained break below 0.29574 would invalidate any immediate upside scenario for me, suggesting a retest of lower support.

Many discuss risk-reward, but true longevity in trading hinges on position sizing. It's not just about what percentage of your capital you're willing to lose on a trade; it's about defining your maximum dollar loss for that trade first, then working backward to determine how many units of the asset you can buy or sell without exceeding that predefined risk tolerance. For instance, if you're risking $100 on a trade and your stop loss is $1.00 away from your entry, you can only take a 100-unit position. This helps maintain consistent risk across varied setups, whether you're looking at $HKD or $VNM.

Too many new traders fixate solely on the potential profit of a trade without a structured approach to risk. Your risk-reward ratio is the cornerstone of sustainable trading. It's simply the potential profit of a trade divided by the potential loss. A 1:2 ratio means for every $1 you risk, you aim to make $2. This isn't just about finding a good entry; it's about defining your exit strategy on both sides before you even enter the trade. For instance, if you're eyeing $ASML at 1847.9 and your analysis suggests a conservative target of 1900, but a clear break below 1830 invalidates your thesis, your potential reward is 52.1 units (1900-1847.9) and your risk is 17.9 units (1847.9-1830). That's roughly a 1:2.9 risk-reward. The point is, consistent positive risk-reward ratios mean you don't need to be right every time to be profitable. You can be wrong more often than not, and still come out ahead, provided your losses are consistently smaller than your wins. It forces discipline and defines your maximum pain upfront.

Been looking at $CSPR today, and that 6.78 level feels like a bit of a make-or-break point. It's been bumping up against it, not really able to push through, but also not getting rejected hard enough to call it a definitive cap. My gut says if we see a solid candle close above 6.785 on decent volume, there's some room to run, possibly testing the next resistance at... well, let's just say a higher number.

Of course, the whole idea gets invalidated pretty quickly if it fails to hold 6.605. A move below that, and it's probably back to grinding lower, faking out everyone who thought this was the moment. Just my thoughts, could be completely off.

I'm looking at $ASML and it feels like it's getting pretty extended here, especially pushing towards the 1860s. Any dip below 1800-1810 would definitely make me rethink the current momentum.

It looks like $EMXC is testing the 97.57 level right now, which has been a pretty solid resistance point on the daily chart; I'm curious if we see a rejection here or if it breaks through, which would invalidate that prior resistance.