Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Nandish
3.1K posts
Nandish
@Aendryr
Growth focused trend trader. Techno-fundamentalist. Buy high, sell higher. No investment advice given.
London, England Katılım Mayıs 2009
9 Takip Edilen123 Takipçiler
Nandish retweetledi
My watchlist process is leadership focused.
I'm looking for stocks that:
> Outperform their sector.
> Outperform the market.
> Hold the 9/21 EMAs.
> Build tight ranges.
> Show linear strength.
Then I simply wait for:
- pullbacks
- 9week tests
- 9/21EMA touches
- s/r flips + areas of prior demand
The stock identifies itself first.
I just wait for my entry.
English
Nandish retweetledi
A quick lesson I've picked up about LEADERSHIP:
"No market can rally unless stocks are set to move up from solid basing patterns." - Zanger
Everyone wants to catch the next monster stock, right? But nobody wants to watch it do absolutely nothing for 6 weeks first.
A stock will spend months building a beautiful tight base...
> higher lows
> volume drying up
> volatility contracting
> institutions accumulating
> rounding up the right side
And traders ignore it because it's "not moving."
Then it breaks out 15% in 3 days, and suddenly everyone on X becomes an expert on the company.
The money was made when you had the patience to stare at a chart that looked like paint drying and recognize that something important was happening while no one else did.
The breakout is the celebration & cheers + the loudest people, but think about it...
The base is where the invitations get handed out.
English
Nandish retweetledi
Trading flipped for me when I stopped asking, "When will this stock go?" and started asking, "Is this a spot where I can risk little & potentially make a lot?"
I used to care about trying to "predict" when a stock is going to go...but the more years I stack, I've realized I care more about positioning myself where the risk is small, and the reward is potentially large.
That was a huge distinction for me at the start. Most traders stare at a stock sitting on support and ask, "How many days does this need to hold before it goes higher?" My honest answer is...I have no idea. And neither does anyone else!
What I do know is that the best leaders tend to leave clues.
When a stock pulls into the 9EMA, 21EMA, 9week, prior breakout pivot, or another area where institutions have previously shown demand, I'm not immediately looking to buy it. I'm looking to observe it. I want to see how it behaves around that area.
Asking myself questions is super helpful for my brain to visualize what I'm seeing...Is volume drying up? Is the stock holding tighter than the market? Is it refusing to break down despite multiple opportunities to do so? Is relative strength remaining intact? Those are the questions I care about because they're telling me something about the battle taking place between buyers and sellers.
A big shift in my own trading came when I stopped thinking of support as a line and started thinking of it as a process.
Support ISN'T just a single candle...support is buyers PROVING they're willing to defend an area.
Sometimes that happens in a day, or it takes a week. Sometimes it takes a month?? Nobody knows when a stock will turn.
The timeline doesn't matter nearly as much as the behavior.
That's why you'll often hear me talk about TIGHTNESS. If a stock has already shown leadership and then starts spending several days or weeks holding near support while volume contracts, my interest usually increases, not decreases. Because to me, that's often a sign that sellers are becoming exhausted while stronger hands continue accumulating shares.
This is also why I use 15-minute and 30-minute pivots so heavily. They allow me to stop guessing and start reacting. Once I see a leading stock pull into an area of interest, I'm simply waiting for buyers to prove themselves. Maybe that's an undercut and reclaim of support, or maybe it's a 30-minute pivot high taken out. Maybe it's a VWAP reclaim...but the exact trigger matters less than the principle behind it.
I'm not buying because I HOPE it bounces. I'm buying because buyers are already starting to show up.
That single mindset change made a massive difference in my results.
The reality is that some of my best trades didn't work immediately. Some stopped me out once or twice. Some required multiple attempts before the stock was finally ready to trend. But if the larger thesis remained intact, I was willing to keep taking shots because I understood the asymmetry.
The goal isn't to be right on the first try (although that would be nice). The goal is to be there when the move finally happens.
Think about names like $ARM, $MU, $SNDK, or countless leaders from previous cycles. Nobody knew the exact day they would launch, but what traders could identify were the characteristics that often precede large moves:
- relative strength
- institutional accumulation
- strong theme + narrative
- tight price action
- constructive pullbacks into support.
Those are the things I focus on, because I have control over what I see...
I'm simply trying to put myself in situations where I can risk a little to potentially make a lot. If the stock works, great. If it doesn't, I take a small loss and move on. If the thesis remains intact, I'll gladly come back and try again.
Because the biggest winners rarely announce exactly when they're going to move.
They just leave clues for traders PATIENT enough to PAY attention.
I hope this explains my thought process a bit better!
Tayz_99@tayzdebon99
@ohiain My question is, when it pulls back, for how long does it need to hold the support? Sometimes it just spends a few days around the key moving averages and takes off again, sometimes weeks. It's very hard time the entry right and this is where I always get confused.
English
Nandish retweetledi
Stock selection MATTERS far more than entry tactics.
Don't get me wrong...I care a lot about execution. I use 15/30minute pivots, undercut & reclaim tactics, ORBs, EMA reclaims, and all the things you've heard me talk about before. But those tactics are only there to help me manage risk and get involved efficiently.
But you don't see the gruesome work before I ever click the buy button.
I've literally watched traders spend years obsessing over entries while completely ignoring the quality of the stock they're trading.
They'll argue over whether a 5-minute pivot is better than a 15-minute pivot, or whether they should buy the breakout or the pullback... meanwhile, they're trading names with no relative strength, no institutional sponsorship, no theme, and no reason to be moving in the first place.
That's backwards...isn't it??
I'd much rather have a mediocre entry in a great stock than a perfect entry in a mediocre stock.
I like to think about some of the biggest winners of every cycle. Most of them give multiple entry opportunities along the way. The reason people miss them isn't because they couldn't find an entry... I believe it's because they never identified the leader to begin with!
That's why my process has to start with stock selection.
Before I care about where I'm entering, I want to know:
> Is this a leading stock?
> Is it outperforming its group?
> Is it outperforming the market?
> Is it coming out of a large base?
> Is there institutional participation?
> Is the theme gaining momentum?
> Is price respecting the moving averages?
> Is effort confirming the move?
Only after I answer those questions do I start thinking about execution.
Because if I can consistently put myself in leading names, I know opportunities will come. Pullbacks happen + consolidations happen + failed breakdowns happen. The market will usually give me a chance!
But if I start with a WEAK stock, no entry tactic in the world is going to save me.
I've become convinced that most traders would improve dramatically if they spent less time studying entries and more time studying leadership.
I have yet for someone to prove my thinking wrong!
Yes, the entry gets you into the trade...
The stock selection determines whether the trade was worth taking in the first place.
Just my 2 cents!
English
Nandish retweetledi
If a leader is going to HOLD UP, it usually tells me right at the 9week.
After studying prior leaders...over and over again, the biggest leaders of every cycle tend to respect the 9week during healthy uptrends.
If you go back and study stocks like $ARM, $MU, $SNDK, or countless other recent market leaders, you'll notice something very, very interesting... after breaking out of large bases, they rarely move in a straight line. Instead, they advance, digest, pull back into support, find buyers, and then continue higher.
More often than not, that support area ends up being somewhere around the 9week.
That's why I pay so much attention to this area on leading names. The 9week is where I start asking questions:
"Is this just normal profit taking?" or...
"Is institutional demand beginning to disappear?"
I do believe both questions answer different concepts.
I've picked up that the majority of traders on X see a pullback and immediately assume something is wrong, but I often see PBs as an opportunity. If a stock has already proven itself as a leader, is part of a strong theme/group, and has been outperforming the market for weeks or months, a pullback into the 9week is usually the first place I become interested again an a range move. But here's the catch...
I don't blindly buy the 9week.
I STALK the reaction.
Think about the psychology of buyers + sellers... after a strong run, people begin taking profits. Short-term traders get nervous, weak hands start selling, and the stock pulls back into an area where institutions have previously supported price.
Now the question becomes:
"Do buyers show up again?"
Simply put...that's what I'm watching.
If a stock slices through the 9week with heavy selling pressure and can't reclaim it, I take note. If sellers push it into the 9week and buyers immediately begin defending the area, that makes my eyebrows perk.
The REACTION matters MORE to me than the level itself.
This is where my lower timeframe execution comes into play. Once a leading stock reaches the 9week, I immediately move down to the 15 + 30min TF. I'm looking for evidence that momentum is beginning to shift.
Things like...
> Undercuts and reclaims
> 15/30 min bullish pivots
> Intraday VWAP reclaims
> Higher TF failed breakdowns
> Higher lows starting to form
> Buyers defending weekly support
These are all clues that selling pressure may be exhausting itself.
My favorite entries usually come when sellers flush price below an obvious level, trap late sellers, and then buyers step in aggressively to reclaim it. Once a 15 or 30min pivot forms, I can enter with a tight stop underneath the low and/or LOD.
That's what creates the asymmetric opportunity.
I'm not trying to buy because the stock is down. I'm buying because buyers are proving they're willing to defend an area (I'm watching) that already matters on the weekly chart.
Something I've learned from studying hundreds of market leaders is that the best stocks often make it difficult to get in. They like to shake people out and create doubt. They pull back just enough to make people question the trend before continuing higher.
IMO, the 9week is often where that battle takes place.
Here's a SIMPLE process to backtest yourself:
1) Identify a leading stock with strong RS.
2) Wait for a PB into the 9week/50EMA confluence.
3) Monitor volume + price behavior around support.
4) Drop down to the 15/30min charts.
5) Wait for buyers to prove they're stepping in.
6) Enter on a pivot high + support reclaim.
7) Risk against the low and/or LOD.
Don't just take my words as truth... give it a try yourself!
This is the focus: to put myself in a position where risk is small, the trend is still intact, and institutions are potentially showing their hand again.
That's why I love the 9week, and again it's not an entry signal by itself. It's an area of interest where some of the best "low-risk" opportunities in leading stocks tend to develop.
I write all of this to say, watch the 9week!
Charts: $INTC, $AMKR, $AEVA, $OUST.
iain@ohiain
It took me years to understand that some of the best opportunities show up when multiple timeframes start telling the same story. A setup immediately gets my attention when a leading stock starts tightening up around the daily 50EMA while simultaneously sitting on the weekly 9EMA. That area tends to attract a lot of eyes from trend followers & swing traders to larger institutions, all evaluating risk around the same spot. When relative strength remains constructive, volatility starts contracting, and buyers continue defending that confluence of support...that's usually my cue to zoom into the smaller TFs and pay very close attention. I just need to recognize that the stock is building pressure, building up the right side, and if expansion comes, the risk/reward can become very attractive. This is something I pay attention to.
English
Nandish retweetledi
I've realized the majority of my profits have never come from buying the breakout itself.
It's come from buying the pullback after the breakout.
Almost every trade I take starts with a stock coming out of a large base. I'm talking about names that have spent months, and sometimes years, moving sideways while institutions accumulate.
Then eventually something changes... maybe it's earnings, or it's a new product cycle. Maybe it's a theme gaining momentum? Whatever the catalyst is, price finally starts leaving the range.
And funny enough, that's where the 99% get excited.
Ironically, that's where I usually become patient.
The breakout gets my attention, but the pullback is often where I get involved.
1 of my favorite setups is the first pullback after a major base breakout. If I miss that one, I'll usually focus on the second consolidation. In my experience, these are often the "highest quality" opportunities because the stock has already proven it can break out, institutions have already shown their hand, and now I'm simply waiting for the market to give me a lower-risk entry.
I like to think about it this way:
- A breakout is the market making a statement.
- The pullback is the market asking a question.
"Are buyers actually willing to defend this area?"
That's what I'm trying to figure out.
When a stock pulls back after breaking out of a large range, I'm paying very close attention to how it behaves. Does it immediately fall apart? Or does it hold key levels and refuse to give back much ground?
When it comes to behavior, I look for TIGHTNESS.
If a stock breaks out 20%, then spends the next two weeks trading in a very tight range while volume dries up, that's constructive behavior to me. Sellers are becoming exhausted while buyers continue absorbing supply. The tighter the action becomes, the more interested I become!
Volume is another huge clue.
During the breakout, I want to see volume expand. That's evidence that institutions are participating. Then during the pullback or consolidation, I want volume to contract. If volume is exploding on every red day, that's usually not what I want to see. But if volume starts drying up while price remains near highs, that's often a sign that selling pressure is becoming limited.
1) Price tells me what happened.
2) Volume tells me how much conviction was behind it.
I also spend a lot of time studying the personality of a chart.
Some stocks are constructive, and some stocks are sloppy.
Some names respect the 9EMA for weeks + months. Others constantly undercut and reclaim support before moving higher. Some stocks have violent shakeouts. Others grind methodically higher.
This is why I constantly study prior winners.
I'm trying to understand how a stock behaves when it's healthy.
> Does it respect moving averages?
> Does it recover quickly after pullbacks?
> Does it close near highs?
> Does it show relative strength on market weakness?
> Does it stay tight?
Those are the little nuances that I look for from a potential leader.
A simple list I look for:
1) Find a stock breaking out of a large base.
2) Confirm relative strength v.s. the market + sector.
3) Wait for the first or second pullback.
4) Watch volume dry up.
5) Look for tightness near major support.
6) Execute on 15 or 30min pivot reclaim.
7) Risk against the low.
Most people think the money is made by finding the perfect breakout... but I've found the money is usually made by finding the strongest stocks and then having the patience to wait for the first real opportunity to join the trend.
If the stock is truly a leader, the breakout is often just the beginning.
The first pullback is where the real asymmetric opportunity tends to show up. That's where I want to be positioned. That's where risk is usually the smallest.
And if the trend continues, that's often where the biggest winners begin!
Chart: $AMKR.
English
@SimonCalder Thanks for the quick reply. Have deleted the post and sent an email. Would be grateful for any assistance 🙏
English
Mauritius issues an official emergency border closure due to the Ebola outbreak, making our travel physically & legally impossible this Sunday. Is this @British_Airways standard policy now? Holding a family’s 40th birthday trip hostage during a public health crisis is shocking.
English
Nandish retweetledi
Ironically, difficult markets often create some of the best opportunities... but the difference is that those opportunities usually require preparation.
Don't wait until the market opens before deciding what you're going to do.
Plan beforehand!
Here's how I narrow things down:
My process usually starts with 30-75 names.
By the time I'm done, I only want 3-5 names that I'd be looking to buy tomorrow.
1. Weekly chart first.
This is non-negotiable.
If the weekly chart isn't supportive, I don't care what the daily chart looks like.
Questions I like to ask myself are...
- Is it above the 9/21 week EMAs?
- Is it near a major weekly pivot?
- Is it breaking out of a multi-month base?
- Is it transitioning Stage 1 → Stage 2?
- Is it one of the strongest names in its group?
If the weekly doesn't excite me, it's gone.
2. Then I rank relative strength.
This is where most names get eliminated.
I want stocks that...
> Closed green while the market was red
> Pulled back less than their sector
> Are preferably sitting near highs
- Continue holding moving averages
- Have shown RS for multiple weeks, not multiple hours...
The strongest names almost always make my final list.
3. Then I look for compression.
1) I don't want extended.
2) I don't want emotional and/or erratic PA.
I want TIGHTNESS.
The tighter the stock becomes...
- The smaller my risk
- The clearer my invalidation
...which breads an asymmetric opportunity.
If I can't clearly identify where I'm wrong, I move on.
4. Then I identify exactly where I would buy it.
Not "I like the chart."
Actual levels.
Examples:
> Pullback into the daily 9/21EMA
> Weekly pivot reclaim
> 15/30min pivot reclaim of XYZ
EMA crossback
If I don't know exactly where I'd enter, it doesn't make the list.
5. Then I ask 1 question:
"If the market is green tomorrow, which stocks do I want to own first?"
That question alone eliminates a lot of names...because not every good chart is a leader. I want the names institutions are most likely to continue accumulating.
By the end of the process, my watchlist usually contains:
Tier 1: The 3-5 names I'd actually buy.
Tier 2: Names that need another day or two of tightening.
Tier 3: Names I like but would only buy if the market improves.
Then when the market opens, I'm not searching for names... but rather I'm waiting.
This makes a HUGE difference.
I'm spending the first hour seeing whether the names I already prepared are confirming my thesis. That's where patience becomes a competitive advantage.
Don't just take my words as truth, you must do the hard work yourself.
English
Nandish retweetledi
Trying to catch bottoms is probably costing you a lot of $$. The highest-probability entry comes AFTER the panic.
This is how I enter leadership on weakness instead:
1. Identify a leading RS stock.
2. Wait for sellers to flush it into a major weekly pivot (9EMA, 21EMA, prior breakout, weekly high/low, etc.).
3. Let the weak hands panic.
4. Watch for buyers to defend the level.
5. Enter on the 15/30min pivot reclaim.
6. Risk against LOD.
I'm not buying because I "hope" it bounces...
...I'm buying because buyers have already started proving they're willing to defend the area.
That's how I consistently buy the right side of the V with tight risk + asymmetric upside.
Save/bookmark this post!
Example:
iain@ohiain
Trading clicked for me when I stopped trying to buy the exact bottom & started FOCUSING on "buying the right side of the move." Want better entries? STOP trying to catch the low. This is how I consistently find asymmetric entries in leading stocks: When I first started, I thought the best traders were the ones catching every low tick perfectly. The reality is that trying to time bottoms is incredibly difficult because when a stock is flushing lower, nobody actually knows where it's going to stop. What I've learned is that I don't need to be the first buyer. I just need to participate when the odds start shifting back in my favor. That's why I love seeing sellers push a stock into a major pivot that I'm already interested in. Maybe it's the 9EMA, the 21EMA, a weekly high, a prior breakout level, or another area where institutions have previously shown demand. When price starts moving into those areas, I become interested...but I don't buy immediately. I simply wait. I want to see how price reacts once it gets there. The way I think about it is that the left side of the V is controlled by fear. People are selling because they're nervous, locking in profits, or reacting emotionally to the pullback. The right side of the V is where buyers start taking control again. That's where confidence begins returning to the stock...and you can visually see it! This is why I use 15 and 30minute pivots so heavily. Once price flushes into a key level, I start looking for signs that selling pressure is drying up. > Is the stock stabilizing? > Are buyers stepping in? > Is it holding the pivot? Once I see that process begin, I'll often use the 15 or 30minute pivot high as my trigger. At that point I'm no longer buying because I "hope" the stock bounces. I'm buying because buyers have already started proving they're willing to defend the area. This gives me extremely tight risk, with my invalidation pivot being LOD. Could I occasionally get a better entry trying to catch the exact low? duh, of course. But I'd much rather sacrifice a few percentage points of entry price in exchange for confirmation. The strongest trends don't care if you missed the first 1-2%. If the stock is truly a leader, there is usually plenty of opportunity ahead... That's why so many of my trades look the same. I identify leadership... 2) wait for controlled weakness into a major pivot. 3) watch sellers exhaust themselves. 4) then enter as momentum begins turning back up. It sounds simple, but that single adjustment changed everything for me because my goal isn't to buy the lowest price. My goal is to put myself in positions where I can define risk clearly and participate when the probabilities start leaning in my favor. I'd rather buy strength off weakness than weakness hoping for strength. My 2 cents.
English
Nandish retweetledi
Trading clicked for me when I stopped trying to buy the exact bottom & started FOCUSING on "buying the right side of the move."
Want better entries? STOP trying to catch the low.
This is how I consistently find asymmetric entries in leading stocks:
When I first started, I thought the best traders were the ones catching every low tick perfectly. The reality is that trying to time bottoms is incredibly difficult because when a stock is flushing lower, nobody actually knows where it's going to stop.
What I've learned is that I don't need to be the first buyer. I just need to participate when the odds start shifting back in my favor.
That's why I love seeing sellers push a stock into a major pivot that I'm already interested in. Maybe it's the 9EMA, the 21EMA, a weekly high, a prior breakout level, or another area where institutions have previously shown demand. When price starts moving into those areas, I become interested...but I don't buy immediately.
I simply wait.
I want to see how price reacts once it gets there.
The way I think about it is that the left side of the V is controlled by fear. People are selling because they're nervous, locking in profits, or reacting emotionally to the pullback. The right side of the V is where buyers start taking control again. That's where confidence begins returning to the stock...and you can visually see it!
This is why I use 15 and 30minute pivots so heavily. Once price flushes into a key level, I start looking for signs that selling pressure is drying up.
> Is the stock stabilizing?
> Are buyers stepping in?
> Is it holding the pivot?
Once I see that process begin, I'll often use the 15 or 30minute pivot high as my trigger. At that point I'm no longer buying because I "hope" the stock bounces. I'm buying because buyers have already started proving they're willing to defend the area.
This gives me extremely tight risk, with my invalidation pivot being LOD.
Could I occasionally get a better entry trying to catch the exact low? duh, of course.
But I'd much rather sacrifice a few percentage points of entry price in exchange for confirmation. The strongest trends don't care if you missed the first 1-2%. If the stock is truly a leader, there is usually plenty of opportunity ahead...
That's why so many of my trades look the same.
I identify leadership...
2) wait for controlled weakness into a major pivot.
3) watch sellers exhaust themselves.
4) then enter as momentum begins turning back up.
It sounds simple, but that single adjustment changed everything for me because my goal isn't to buy the lowest price. My goal is to put myself in positions where I can define risk clearly and participate when the probabilities start leaning in my favor.
I'd rather buy strength off weakness than weakness hoping for strength.
My 2 cents.
English
Nandish retweetledi
As simply put... I believe a leader is a stock that consistently behaves better than both the market + its peers.
A lot of people think leadership starts with indicators, but I actually think it starts with BEHAVIOR.
For example, if the market pulls back 3 days in a row and a stock barely moves, holds the 9EMA, tightens up, and then immediately makes new highs when the market stabilizes, that's leadership to me.
Some things I personally look for:
> Relative strength vs the market
> Relative strength vs its sector/group
> Trading near highs while others are pulling back
> Tight consolidations after big moves
> Strong earnings/sales or a powerful narrative
> Volume expansion on upside moves
> Respecting key moving averages repeatedly
> Quick recoveries after weakness
> Insitutional Sponorship
I think I've come to the recent realization that leaders almost feel "annoyingly strong." They don't give you the pullbacks you want & they don't stay weak for long. They keep finding buyers...
Take a stock like $ARM earlier this year. The market would have red days, and it would still close green. Then when the market turned back up, it exploded. That's the exact type of behavior I'm looking for.
I've stopped asking, "What stock can go up?" and started asking, "Which stock is already proving it's the strongest in the Market?"
Leaders usually tell you long before they make their biggest move, and every day I try to listen and react to PRICE!
Trading Options With Charts@OptionsTraderMS
@ohiain What makes a stock leader? Can you pls elaborate? I got into $DOCN too today due the structure
English
Nandish retweetledi
"If there is no tightness, there is no trade."
This 1 concept is the biggest reason I've had my best month of 2026 so far, + I've attached 4 recent positions I've added in the last 2weeks as examples:
When people ask what I've been focused on recently, the answer is simply identifying Stage 1 → Stage 2 transitions + big bases & finding names that are compressing tightly underneath major pivots, and waiting for that tension to release.
Just look at some of my newer adds over the last 2 weeks... $RDW, $ORCL, $TEAM, $ARM.
> different industries.
> different narratives/themes
> different personalities.
Yet the charts all shared one thing in common.
TIGHTNESS.
Before the move, each name spent time compressing, absorbing supply, frustrating traders, and building energy (tension).
Most traders hate this phase because it feels boring...but I personally love this phase.
Think about a spring...the tighter you compress it, the more potential energy gets stored. Stocks behave the exact same way.
The longer a stock can:
- hold key support
- trade in a tight range
- absorb sellers
- build higher lows
- stay near highs
...the more attention I pay.
Why?
Because institutions cannot build massive positions in a single day. They accumulate over weeks and months.
The footprints they leave behind are usually...
- tight ranges
- volume contraction
- failed breakdowns
- higher lows
- repeated support at important pivots.
That's why I care so much about Stage 1 → Stage 2 transitions.
"The bigger the base, the bigger the potential move."
Not because the stock "has to" go higher...
...but because longer bases allow more supply to get absorbed, more weak hands to get shaken out, and more institutional ownership to develop before the next expansion phase begins.
Then once momentum returns (right side of V)...
BOOM. Tension → release.
and/or...
Compression → expansion.
And that's exactly what we've been seeing recently across software, AI infrastructure, defense, quantum, and other leading groups.
My process is pretty dang simple.
1. Find leading names.
2. Trade the strong groups/themes.
3. Wait for tightness.
4. Wait for controlled weakness into support.
5. Buy on the right side of the V using 15/30min pivots.
6. Let the winner work.
The market constantly rotates from one theme to another, but the behavior of leadership rarely changes.
The names change, but the process doesn't.
And right now, my process is working incredibly well!
Chart: $TEAM, $ARM, $ORCL, $RDW.
iain@ohiain
If there is no tightness, there is no trade for me! Multiple names gave actionable entries today right off support pivots... first compression, absorbed sellers, & built tension. This is EXACTLY the type of behavior I look for every single day. Chart: $AMZN, $FLNC, $MRAM & $BW.
English
Nandish retweetledi
I am trying to align myself with the strongest stocks in the strongest groups while they are already proving institutional demand through price.
1) I am not looking for cheap stocks.
2) I am not looking for broken charts.
3) I am not trying to be early in names that have shown me nothing.
I want strength that is already visible, then I wait for a controlled entry where I can define risk.
My process always starts with leadership.
Before I care about the setup, I ask myself: is this name actually leading? Is it outperforming the market? Is it outperforming its sector? Is it holding up on red days? Is it reclaiming moving averages quickly after pullbacks? If the answer is no, I usually lose interest fast.
Relative strength first.
Setup second.
After that, I look at the group. 1 strong stock is interesting, but multiple strong stocks in the same theme usually means institutional rotation. That is why I constantly track semis, AI infrastructure, power, defense, quantum, software, crypto, and any group where money is clearly flowing.
Then I look for structure.
Momentum alone is not enough for me... I need tightness & I need compression. I need a place where risk makes sense.
If a stock already made a strong move, I do not want to chase the emotional candle. I want to see it pause, digest, pull into the 9/21EMAs, build higher lows, absorb sellers, and start tightening again.
That is where the opportunity forms.
The move higher creates attention + the pullback shakes out weak hands. The tightness stores energy, and once price starts reclaiming pivots again, the next move higher can happen fast.
This is why so much of my trading revolves around:
> Stage 1 → Stage 2 transitions
> 9/21EMA pullbacks
> undercut/reclaim setups
> 15/30min pivot entries
> weekly breakout structures
> tight flags after expansion
> relative strength names on weakness
The actual entry is where I get aggressive.
If a leading stock pulls into support, undercuts a key level, then reclaims and starts turning back up on the 15/30min timeframe, that is one of my favorite entries. I can place my stop near LOD or the support pivot, know exactly where I am wrong, and participate right as momentum starts returning.
If I am wrong, I lose small.
If I am right, the stock should start working almost immediately.
Momentum trading is not buying random green candles.
It is finding true leadership, waiting for structure, entering where risk is tight, and then having the patience to let the winner work.
Most of my trades are small losses, breakeven trades, or small wins.
The outlier winners pay for everything.
Simple... but NOT easy.
English
Nandish retweetledi
The big money in the market is usually made from understanding the SMALL nuances most traders completely ignore when selecting stocks.
I struggled with this exact same thing for YEARS.
When you first start improving as a trader, the hardest part almost becomes that you suddenly start seeing “setups” everywhere. Every chart starts looking interesting, every breakout feels buyable, every dip feels like opportunity… and before you know it, your focus becomes completely scattered.
What helped me the most was realizing that my edge was never going to come from trading more names.
It came from getting significantly more intentional about which names deserved my attention in the first place.
1) That’s why my process today starts with relative strength FIRST.
Before I even think about an entry setup, I ask:
- Is this stock outperforming the market?
- Is it outperforming its sector/group?
- Is it holding moving averages while others fail?
- Is volume confirming accumulation?
- Is there a strong narrative/theme backing it?
- Are institutions clearly involved?
- Is this a potential Stage 1 → Stage 2 transition?
- Is the group itself showing signs of leadership?
That immediately cuts down 90% of the names for me.
There are ALWAYS going to be “setups” on random charts...but not every setup deserves your capital or your mental energy.
2) The next thing that helped me massively was building watchlists with INTENTION.
I stopped trying to watch 100 names equally.
Now I usually have:
> a few true leaders I deeply understand
> a few emerging themes/groups
> a smaller handful of names actively setting up
And then I basically stalk those names all day waiting for MY entry model:
controlled weakness into support, 9/21EMA pullback, 15/30min pivot, undercut/reclaim, tightness, volume contraction, momentum turning back up.
Once I simplified things down like that, conviction naturally started increasing because I actually understood WHY I was taking trades instead of randomly reacting to candles all day.
And another thing…
Confidence usually comes AFTER repetition.
A lot of traders think confidence magically appears first, but for me confidence came from seeing the SAME setup work repeatedly over hundreds of examples.
That’s why I constantly preach backtesting and studying prior winners. The more intentional screen time you get, the easier it becomes to recognize:
“Okay… THIS is real leadership.”
vs.
“This is just random participation.”
So if you feel overwhelmed right now, that’s normal. It probably just means your eyes are improving faster than your process is narrowing things down.
The solution usually isn’t finding MORE setups.
It’s learning how to become dramatically more selective.
Kaushik Kannan@drunkenmonk5
@ohiain I think what I struggle with is selecting the right stocks to do this with. Seeing setups everywhere. I wish I could find a little more focus, confidence, and conviction.
English
Nandish retweetledi
1) “Is this stock going up?”
2) “Is this stock a true market leader?”
There’s a massive difference.
Most stocks can bounce, but very few become leaders.
A leader is a stock institutions continuously come back to. It outperforms the market, holds trends longer than expected, respects key moving averages, attracts volume on expansions, and consistently gets bought on pullbacks.
These names almost feel “easy” during strong environments because demand stays persistent continuously.
For me, relative strength is the #1 starting point.
When the market is weak, I’m watching which names refuse to break down. If $SPY and/or $QQQ are red and a stock is holding flat or green, that immediately gets my attention. Strong stocks tend to act like beach balls underwater...the longer they resist pressure, the harder they move once market conditions improve.
And that’s leadership.
I also pay close attention to how a stock behaves around key moving averages, especially the 9EMA, 21EMA, and 50day. True leaders don’t usually give you deep, emotional pullbacks during strong trends. They pull into support, tighten up, volume dries up, and then buyers step back in aggressively.
Weak stocks feel heavy, and leaders feel supported.
Another huge tell is how the stock reacts after earnings or catalysts. A lot of stocks can gap up one day. Very few can hold those gains for weeks while continuing to build tight consolidations near highs. That’s usually institutions defending positions, not retail traders randomly buying candles!
I’m also obsessed with Stage 1 → Stage 2 transitions because that’s where many future leaders first emerge.
I focus on large multi-month bases because they represent accumulation. The larger the base, the more potential energy gets built for a move higher. Once supply finally gets absorbed, those names can trend for months longer than most people expect.
And honestly, one of the most underrated parts of identifying leaders is simply studying thousands of charts.
Through time, you begin recognizing certain characteristics:
-tight price action
-strong closes
-pullbacks get bought up
-persistent relative strength
-expanding volume on breakouts
-orderly consolidations instead of erratic PA
Leadership leaves clues, and the mistake I made early on was trying to force laggards because they “looked cheaper” or “hadn’t moved yet.”
In reality, the best traders I studied kept buying the strongest names in the strongest sectors over and over again.
That felt uncomfortable to me at first.
But eventually I realized institutions don’t care if something already doubled. If the story, flows, and demand continue strengthening, they keep buying. That’s why true leaders often go much further than people think is rational.
Now my entire process revolves around finding those names early, managing risk tightly, and pressing when the market confirms I’m aligned with real leadership.
Because stock selection is everything!
A mediocre trader in a true leader often outperforms a great trader stuck in weak names.
Singh is king@sasingh1209
@ohiain How u decide if the stock is a leader or not, please share
English
Nandish retweetledi
If you’re a beginner or even a 1 or 2 years in, and you’re not obsessed with drawdown control, you’re focusing on the wrong thing.
I used to do the same thinking about upside, targets, “how big this 1 trade could be”… but none of that matters if you can’t stay in the game. The traders who last aren’t the ones calling the biggest moves, they’re the ones who keep losses small when they’re wrong.
It's the only business where losses are guaranteed in this game.
The only thing you actually control is how much you lose when you’re wrong...and that’s what determines everything long term.
Translation: protect your downside or the market will humble you for free.
English
Nandish retweetledi
There are infinite ways to identify leading sectors/industries in the markets.
and you can spend thousands on premium scanners and data feeds if you want to.
but I'm going to share with you an approach that costs absolutely nothing and takes less than 5 mins a day to complete.
Here’s a simple way I do it:
1) Go to Finviz (free)
2) Click Groups → Industry
3) Check 1 week/1 month performance
4) Track the top sectors in a watchlist
From there, add or subtract the leading names in those sectors/themes.
That’s it, keep it simple.
I think one of the biggest mistakes I made early in my trading journey was overcomplicating this process by trying to use ten different tools, screeners, and custom indicators when all I really needed was a simple, repeatable system that I could execute every single day without thinking!!
The big principle here is that less is more.
and having a simple approach that you actually follow consistently is infinitely more valuable than having a complex system that you only use when you feel like it or that paralyzes you with too many choices.
First, I go to Finviz, which is completely free and accessible to anyone with an internet connection, and I click on the "Groups" tab at the top of the page, then I select "Industry" from the dropdown menu.
From there, I check the one-week and one-month performance columns to see which sectors and industries are showing the strongest relative performance compared to the rest of the market, because if a sector is up 8% over the past week while the SPY is only up 0.5%, that tells me there's real money flowing into that space and it deserves my attention.
I'm not looking for sectors that are down 5% and "look cheap" or "seem due for a bounce," I'm looking for sectors that are already working, that are showing persistent strength, and that have momentum behind them because that's where the institutional money is going and that's where the best setups are going to come from.
Once I've identified the top 3 to 5 sectors based on that one-week and one-month performance data, I track those sectors in a dedicated watchlist and then I start drilling down into the individual leading names within those sectors.
What I'm doing is adding the strongest names that are showing strong structure, relative strength, and volume confirmation while subtracting any names that start breaking down or losing momentum.
That's literally it.
That's the entire process, and it's so simple that you could teach it to someone in under two minutes.
...but the power comes from doing this every single day without fail so that you're constantly aware of where the money is rotating in real time.
The simplicity here keeps you aligned with real market behavior instead of getting lost in noise, opinions, or narratives that don't actually have money behind them, because at the end of the day, the market doesn't care what you think should work or what looks attractive on paper.
...it only cares about where the money is actually flowing, and if you can train yourself to follow the money instead of fighting it or predicting it, you'll be miles ahead of the majority of traders who are still chasing what looks cheap or betting on reversals that never come.
Focus on where the money is moving, keep your process dead simple, and let the market tell you what's working instead of trying to impose your own narrative on it.
I'm speaking to my younger self here.
again there are infinite ways, but keeping it simple will help in the long run!!
because that shift in mindset alone saved me years of frustration and wasted effort.
iain@ohiain
I used to pick perfect chart patterns in dying sectors and wonder why they never moved, until I learned to follow the money first. I used to pick stocks in a vacuum. I'd find a beautiful chart pattern, enter with confidence, and watch it go nowhere while stocks in another sector ripped 20%. That changed when I started treating sector rotation as my primary filter. Here's a simple process you can follow: Every Sunday, I review the eleven sector ETFs. $XLK, $XLF, $XLE, $XLV, $XLY, $XLP, $XLI, $XLC, $XLRE, $XLB, and $XLU. I'm looking at their weekly charts to see which sectors are absorbing capital and which are bleeding it. I rank them by relative strength against $SPY and $QQQ over the past 4 and 12 weeks. The top three get my attention. The bottom three get blacklisted. I don't care how pretty an individual stock looks if its sector is getting sold. Then I drill down to individual stocks within the leading sectors. This is where stage analysis becomes a piece to the puzzle. I'm hunting for stocks/sectors that have built large, multi month/year stage 1 bases... those long, choppy consolidations where a stock goes sideways after a prior move. The longer the base, the bigger the potential move when it breaks out. I want to see multiple weeks built out on the weekly chart... but a great weekly base isn't enough. I rotate down to the daily timeframe to assess if the risk/reward is actually there. Is the stock coiling tight? Are the daily candles contracting in range? Is it riding along a rising 9/21 or 50EMA? I'm looking for asymmetric setups where I can risk little to make 5-10x my risk. If the daily is too loose or choppy, I pass, even if the weekly looks perfect. I also watch for the rotation warning signs. When a leading sector starts making lower highs, or when its top holdings begin breaking support levels, I tighten stops and reduce exposure, because sector leadership doesn't last forever. For example, within the recent months Technology led, then money rotated into financials and industrials. The edge is to simply trade with the current, not against it. When a sector has institutional money pouring in, individual stocks within it get lifted. Your mediocre setup in a hot sector will outperform a perfect setup in a weak one. With this method, I'm no longer fighting the market's underlying currents. I'm identifying where capital is flowing, finding stocks with big bases within those leading sectors, and waiting for the daily chart to tighten up before entry. Keepin' it simple and repeatable!
English
Nandish retweetledi
I used to pick perfect chart patterns in dying sectors and wonder why they never moved, until I learned to follow the money first.
I used to pick stocks in a vacuum. I'd find a beautiful chart pattern, enter with confidence, and watch it go nowhere while stocks in another sector ripped 20%.
That changed when I started treating sector rotation as my primary filter.
Here's a simple process you can follow:
Every Sunday, I review the eleven sector ETFs.
$XLK, $XLF, $XLE, $XLV, $XLY, $XLP, $XLI, $XLC, $XLRE, $XLB, and $XLU.
I'm looking at their weekly charts to see which sectors are absorbing capital and which are bleeding it.
I rank them by relative strength against $SPY and $QQQ over the past 4 and 12 weeks.
The top three get my attention.
The bottom three get blacklisted.
I don't care how pretty an individual stock looks if its sector is getting sold.
Then I drill down to individual stocks within the leading sectors. This is where stage analysis becomes a piece to the puzzle.
I'm hunting for stocks/sectors that have built large, multi month/year stage 1 bases... those long, choppy consolidations where a stock goes sideways after a prior move.
The longer the base, the bigger the potential move when it breaks out. I want to see multiple weeks built out on the weekly chart... but a great weekly base isn't enough.
I rotate down to the daily timeframe to assess if the risk/reward is actually there.
Is the stock coiling tight?
Are the daily candles contracting in range?
Is it riding along a rising 9/21 or 50EMA?
I'm looking for asymmetric setups where I can risk little to make 5-10x my risk. If the daily is too loose or choppy, I pass, even if the weekly looks perfect.
I also watch for the rotation warning signs.
When a leading sector starts making lower highs, or when its top holdings begin breaking support levels, I tighten stops and reduce exposure, because sector leadership doesn't last forever.
For example, within the recent months Technology led, then money rotated into financials and industrials.
The edge is to simply trade with the current, not against it.
When a sector has institutional money pouring in, individual stocks within it get lifted. Your mediocre setup in a hot sector will outperform a perfect setup in a weak one.
With this method, I'm no longer fighting the market's underlying currents.
I'm identifying where capital is flowing, finding stocks with big bases within those leading sectors, and waiting for the daily chart to tighten up before entry.
Keepin' it simple and repeatable!
English
Nandish retweetledi
I see a lot of newer traders obsessing over entry tactics as if they're the holy grail of trading success.
and I completely understand why, because when I was starting out, entries felt like the most tangible thing I could control and perfect.
I would see someone post an ORH breakout that worked beautifully, or a VWAP reclaim that led to a massive winner, and I thought to myself:
"If I can just master that specific entry, I'll be profitable."
so I spent months backtesting opening range breakouts, studying pivot reclaims, trailing moving averages, and perfecting my execution down to the second.
...but what I wish someone had told me when I was going through that phase is that if I had focused on tracking where the money was actually going (aka):
which sectors institutional buying was rotating to
which themes had institutional sponsorship
which names were showing relative strength
I would have progressed exponentially faster than I did, trying to perfect my entry timing.
What I learned is that if you're already looking in the right place, if you're trading the leading names in the hottest themes with the wind at your back, it rarely matters if you enter in the morning, midday, or afternoon.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen the ugliest chart you can imagine work beautifully in a strong market with a hot theme behind it.
While the perfect textbook setup in a weak environment or a dead sector goes absolutely nowhere and chops you up for weeks.
I always ask myself:
Would I rather have the cleanest entry on a stock that nobody cares about in a sector that's bleeding, or would you rather have a sloppy entry on a leading name in a theme that's ripping with volume and institutional buying?
The answer is obvious when you put it like that, but so many traders, including my younger self, get it backwards because we're conditioned to think that precision is the same thing as edge.
Early in my journey, I fell into this exact trap where I was trying to copy entries exactly as I saw them online (buy the ORH, stop at LOD, trail with the 9 EMA) and sometimes it worked, and when it did I thought I'd finally cracked the code and figured out the secret.
...but more often than not, the trades failed, and I couldn't explain why.
because the problem wasn't the tactic itself but rather that I didn't understand when and why that tactic should be used in the first place.
I was copying outcomes without copying the thinking that led to those outcomes, and that's a recipe for frustration and inconsistency because you're essentially flying blind and hoping that if you just execute the mechanics perfectly, the results will follow.
What most people miss is that entry tactics are simply tools, not strategies, and an ORB works best in a strong environment with expanding breadth and real momentum carrying names higher, while a VWAP reclaim is powerful when it aligns with higher timeframe structure and real institutional participation behind the move, etc.
Recently, for example, undercuts and reclaim entries on the daily off moving averages have been working incredibly well in this environment.
...where back in September through November, buying ORB breakouts was far more effective than buying undercuts because the market was in a different phase with different characteristics.
The work that rarely gets shown and that nobody wants to talk about happens before the entry, and it's understanding the environment:
Is the market trending or choppy?
Are we in expansion or contraction?
Are leaders behaving well or distributing?
Is volatility supportive of momentum trades or mean reversion?
These are the questions that dictate which entry tactic even makes sense, because the same ORB that works great in a trending tape will destroy you in a range-bound one, and if you don't understand that context, you'll keep blaming your execution when the real issue is that you're using the wrong tool for the wrong job.
Here's what I would tell my younger self if I could go back:
Focus on entry tactics second.
First, focus on finding relative strength, identifying sector rotations, and trading the names that have the wind at their back first.
because if you're in the right place at the right time, the entry becomes almost irrelevant.
I also would ask myself:
Would you rather be the trader who has perfect entries but is constantly fighting against weak sectors and dying themes, or would you rather be the trader who has average entries but is trading the leading names in the sectors where all the money is flowing?
I know which one I'd rather be, because I've been both, and I can tell you from experience that trading with the money is infinitely easier than trying to pick pennies off the floor in sectors that nobody cares about.
There's also a psychological layer that gets ignored when people fixate on entries, which is that conviction doesn't come from memorizing a rule or copying someone else's tactic... it comes from earning trust in a process through repetition, through studying hundreds of charts, taking trades, reviewing them honestly, and refining what works for your specific tendencies and edge.
Until you do that work, you won't know when to press, when to pass, or when to cut quickly, and you'll hesitate and override your rules at the worst possible moments.
and this isn't because you're undisciplined but because you lack the conviction that only comes from screen time and personalizing your system.
So if you're a beginner or intermediate trader and you're still obsessing over whether you should buy the ORH or wait for the VWAP reclaim, I'd encourage you to zoom out and ask yourself a bigger question:
am I even looking in the right place?
because if you're trading the right themes,
the right sectors,
and the right names with relative strength,
the entry becomes a detail, not the deciding factor.
and that shift in perspective is what helped me go from spinning my wheels perfecting mechanics, to someone who can actually pull money out of the markets consistently.
English