Nandish

A few things I personally look for when buying pullbacks in leading stocks: - strong stocks in the strongest sectors + themes. - clear relative strength vs the indexes & its peers. - favorable market conditions with improving breadth. - a constructive weekly chart (non-negotiable). - price > rising 9/21EMAs on the daily + weekly. - prior momentum leg = strong institutional demand. - meaningful catalyst, earnings reaction, etc. - orderly pullback rather than erratic price action. - Declining volume as price pulls into support. - tight price action + volatility contraction. - higher lows showing buyers stepping up. - support near the 9/21EMA, AVWAP, or prior b/o pivot. - price holding above key daily + weekly pivots. - constructive base forming after the initial expansion. - RS holding up during broader market weakness. - right-side reclaim of major pivots - favorable R/R with room for another expansion leg. - my existing positions working before progressively adding exposure. The more evidence (layers of probability) that I stack in my favor, the more interested I become. I'm not buying a stock simply because it's pulled back. I'm buying a leader that's resting within a healthy trend, preferably at a location where I can be wrong quickly + small. That's the difference between buying weakness in strength and catching a falling knife. - iain 🩵

If you're struggling to make money during this correction, here's what I'd be doing instead of trying to nail the exact bottom. A few lessons I've learned, many of which you'll find echoed throughout the Market Wizards books: 1) Protect your capital FIRST. you can't take advantage of the next uptrend if you've already blown yourself up trying to predict the bottom. 2) Let your equity curve dictate exposure. taking repeated paper cuts? Cut size, don't double down. 3) Stop averaging down on losers. a stock getting cheaper doesn't automatically make it a better opportunity. 4) Track relative strength, don't force trades in it. study which leaders are holding up while the indexes get smoked. 5) Pay attention to leadership breaking down. when former leaders start losing weekly moving averages, that's a clue to be cautious. 6) Keep updating your watchlists. add emerging leaders, remove broken names & identify which groups are attracting capital from institutions. 7) Study price + volume every evening. some of my best preparation happens when I'm barely trading, so... prepare, prepare, prepare. 8) Wait for the market to confirm your thesis. higher lows, improving bases + weekly pivot reclaims mean more to me than guessing where the low should be. 9) Don't confuse a bounce with a new uptrend. mean reversion into declining moving averages isn't the same as institutional accumulation. 10) Know your invalidation before entering. if I can't identify where I'm wrong, I'm not interested. 11) Trade smaller when uncertainty is elevated. especially ahead of major earnings, FOMC + other market-moving catalysts. 12) Stop looking for trades out of boredom. the market doesn't owe you an opportunity just because you opened your charts. 13) Don't borrow conviction from other traders. somebody else's profitable setup might be completely outside your edge. 14) Keep your losses stupidly small. a few paper cuts are manageable. one oversized emotional trade can undo months of progress. 15) Start small when conditions improve. let your first positions prove themselves before progressively adding exposure. 16) Press when you've earned the right to press. strong leadership, quality setups + a rising equity curve are what I want to see before getting aggressive. 17) Quit obsessing over being first. i'd gladly miss the bottoming day if it means participating in a healthier, more sustainable trend. 18) Protect your mental capital. stepping away from the screens is likely the most productive thing you can do. Just a few thoughts to chew on. enjoy your weekend, family!! Feel free to add your own additions below! keep it stupid simple. :)

Nobody cares what your favorite Wall Street analyst upgraded or downgraded this morning. Price doesn't care about their fancy price targets, and neither should you. learn to read price/volume instead of useless words from some dude in a suit who probably bought the top himself.

You don't need 2 hours of scanning every morning to find the best opportunities. Give me 20 minutes, and here's where I'd start... 1) Market check: Look at $SPY, $QQQ, $IWM, and $VIX. ...is the market in an uptrend (higher highs/higher lows, above rising moving averages)? ...os $QQQ leading $SPY (growth risk on) or lagging? ...is $IWM participating or lagging (broad participation vs mega cap only)? ... $VIX elevated and rising (caution) or subdued? -- 2) Sector ranking: Rank the 11 Select Sector SPDRs ($XLK, $XLV, $XLF, $XLY, $XLC, $XLI, $XLP, $XLE, $XLU, $XLRE, $XLB) by relative strength versus $SPY. Focus on the top 3-4 and bottom 2-3. Note any sudden changes in ranking... these often signal rotation. -- 3) Theme scan: Within the leading sectors, check the relevant themes. this is just for an example, but... Technology leading... look at $SMH, $SOXX, $AIQ & $BAI, $CIBR, $DRAM, $IGV, $BOTZ. Industrials leading... check $ITA & $SHLD, $PAVE, $GRID. Energy or Utilities leading → check $NLR + $URA and related power/infrastructure names. Only then look for individual setups inside the strongest themes, and if the market or sector is weak, reduce size or stay in cash. Simple & repeatable.

Finding the right stock and finding the right time to trade it are 2 completely different skills. You can find the strongest stock in the strongest group, execute a precise entry, and still get stopped out simply because the broader market isn't cooperating. I like to think about it like swimming against a current. You might be the strongest swimmer in the water, but you're making your life unnecessarily difficult fighting something much bigger than yourself, and I think the same applies to trading. A huge portion of an individual stock's performance is influenced by the broader environment + its respective industry group. That's why, during corrections, I'm not necessarily looking to buy the stocks holding up best. I'm studying them. Which names are holding their 9/21EMAs while the indexes lose theirs? Which groups are refusing to make new lows? Where is volume drying up on pullbacks, and where are buyers consistently defending key weekly levels? Those are the footprints I'm paying attention to while everyone else is trying to predict the exact bottom. Then, when the $SPY & $QQQ begin curling off the right side, reclaiming key moving averages (like today) and showing broader participation, I've already done the homework. I'm not scrambling through 100s of charts trying to figure out what's strong. I've spent the entire correction adding and subtracting names from my watchlists, identifying the strongest groups, and narrowing down the leaders within them. From there, I'm looking for my familiar setups such as constructive daily pullbacks, tight consolidations, 9/21EMA reclaims, etc where I can define risk against a nearby low. I'll typically start with smaller exposure and only press as my positions begin working + the market confirms the turn. I'm just trying to be prepared enough to recognize leadership when the wind finally shifts in my favor. Some of my best opportunities have come from the work I did when there was absolutely nothing worth trading. That's the part of this business I wish I'd understood sooner.

The 30min pivot has become one of the most important entry tactics in my entire system. Huge credit to @1ChartMaster because he was the one who really opened my eyes to how powerful this entry tactic can be on true leadership names. And it also solved one of the biggest problems I used to struggle with...chasing strength emotionally. I think a lot of momentum traders can relate to this. You see a stock like $MU, $ARM, $INTC, or $MRVL exploding intraday, your brain starts screaming “don’t miss it,” and before you know it you’re buying extended candles after a huge expansion move. Then the stock pulls back 3-5% immediately after you enter, you get shaken out, and somehow the stock ends up going higher without you anyway. That cycle used to happen to me constantly. The 30min pivot completely changed that for me because now instead of chasing emotional strength, I wait for controlled weakness *inside* strong trends. I’m specifically looking for: -a true leader, -inside a strong theme, -holding key moving averages, -while institutions continue defending dips. Names like $MU and $ARM recently are perfect examples. These aren’t random low-float junk names bouncing around. These are institutional leadership stocks inside powerful themes like semis, AI infrastructure, memory, networking, and data centers. Momentum persistence in leading stocks is often driven by institutional accumulation and trend continuation behavior, especially during strong sector rotations. "But how do I enter using the 30min pivot?" No need to fret, my friend. This is my EXACT entry process: I wait for the stock to flush intraday into a key area: usually the 9EMA, 21EMA, prior breakout pivot, AVWAP, or some obvious support zone where I think buyers may defend. I do absolutely nothing during the flush itself, because I’m not trying to catch the exact bottom...all I’m doing is waiting for proof the selling pressure is slowing down. Then I look for the first green 30min candle after the selloff. That candle becomes my pivot candle! The second price takes out the high of that candle, I enter immediately. My stop goes under the low of the day or slightly beneath a support pivot. That’s what creates the asymmetry for me. If I’m wrong, I know very quickly. Small loss, then move on. But if I’m right, I’m entering a leading stock at the exact moment momentum begins shifting back higher after weak hands just got flushed out. That’s why I love this setup so much in momentum environments. It allows me to participate in leadership without chasing vertical expansion candles emotionally. A stock can be incredibly strong and still offer a terrible entry if you’re buying emotional extensions into resistance. The 30min pivot forces me to stay patient and wait for the stock to come into my areas instead of forcing trades because of FOMO. The real edge comes from combining the setup with *stock selection*. Strong stocks in strong groups tend to offer repeated opportunities during uptrends as pullbacks into moving averages often become areas institutions defend before continuation higher. That’s why this setup has helped me catch some of my biggest winners recently like $ARM, $MU, $INTC, $DELL, etc. Give it a try and let me know if it helps!

I break most of my pullback entries into 3 parts: 1. LOCATION: Stock pulls into the 9/21EMA, prior support or another meaningful level. 2. CONFIRMATION: Buyers respond + a 15/30 minute pivot develops. 3. EXECUTION: Enter through the pivot with risk defined against the relevant low. The mistake I made for years was skipping step 2.

A follower asked me recently whether I prefer buying breakouts or pullbacks, and I think my answer would've been completely different a few years ago. Nowadays, my answer is pretty simple = whichever one the market is rewarding me for. But there's a lot more to that answer than it sounds, and I think understanding the difference could save newer traders an unbelievable amount of money. More importantly, there's something I've learned about the relationship between breakouts & pullbacks that completely changed how I approach my entries. This is a longer-winded writeup, but let me explain. When we're in a choppy environment like we've experienced recently, I'm generally much more interested in buying weakness in strength rather than chasing stocks through obvious breakout pivots. You can have the most textbook setup imaginable, buy through your pivot, watch the stock move +5% in your favor, and then spend the rest of the afternoon wondering how the heck it moved back at b/e and/or took a loss. Do that enough times and those little paper cuts start adding up. What's frustrating is that your stock selection might've been perfectly fine. You were just using an entry tactic that the environment wasn't rewarding. That's an important distinction I've had to learn over the years. A good stock, a good setup, and a good entry aren't necessarily the same thing. So when breakouts stop following through, I naturally start paying more attention to leaders that have already proven themselves with a Stage 1 → Stage 2 breakout and are now pulling back toward their rising 9/21EMAs or major weekly pivots. I'm still looking for the exact same characteristics... RS against the market + its peers, constructive price action (linearity), and evidence that institutions are willing to defend these areas. But I want to make something clear because I see this misunderstood ALL the time. A stock touching its 9EMA is not a reason for me to buy it. I want to see how it gets there. Is volume contracting as price pulls back? Are sellers struggling to push it lower? Is it holding up better than the rest of its group? And most importantly, when price reaches that area of interest, are buyers actually showing up? I've watched plenty of stocks bleed into their moving averages, sit near LOD for an hour, and then slice straight through support. There's a pretty big difference between a stock reaching an area where buyers "might" show up and actually seeing evidence that they're willing to defend it. That's where my lower timeframes come into play. Let's say I've been stalking a leader that's pulling back toward its rising daily 9EMA. Instead of trying to catch the exact bottom, I'll watch how price behaves around that level during the session. Maybe we get an aggressive flush off the open, a reclaim of VWAP, and then the first higher low begins developing on the 15/30 minute chart. Now I've got something to work with. If price starts reclaiming that intraday pivot, I can potentially enter with my risk against LOD or whatever technical level invalidates the setup. I'm not guessing where the bottom is anymore, because I'm letting buyers show their hand before I commit my capital. And here's the part I wish someone had explained to me years ago. I'm technically buying a pullback on the daily chart and a breakout on the intraday chart at the EXACT same time. Think about that for a second... The daily chart is showing weakness within an established uptrend, while the 15/30 minute chart is beginning to show strength as buyers reclaim control. Same stock, same opportunity, 2 completely different perspectives depending on the timeframe. Price is fractal, and once I started understanding that relationship, I stopped obsessing over whether I was a "breakout trader" or a "pullback trader." I'm just trying to position myself in strong stocks at areas where I can be wrong quickly and small. Now, flip the environment. When we're in a healthy trending market, breadth is expanding, my scans are filling up with leaders, and breakouts are actually following through, I'm MUCH more comfortable buying through major pivots. But why? Because I've learned that some of the strongest stocks in the market are incredibly rude. They'll spend 4-8 weeks building a big base, volume dries up, price tightens underneath a major weekly pivot, and then the stock breaks out and never gives you the pullback you were patiently waiting for. I've missed my fair share of incredible opportunities because I was so determined to get the perfect entry that I forgot what I was actually trying to accomplish. The goal isn't to buy the lowest possible price. The goal is to find an asymmetric opportunity where the potential upside meaningfully outweighs what I'm risking. If a stock has spent weeks absorbing supply and is finally expanding out of a major Stage 1 base into a potential Stage 2 uptrend, I'm not going to automatically pass on it because it didn't pull back to the 9EMA first. Sometimes paying a little more for confirmation is perfectly reasonable, assuming I can still define my risk appropriately. That's the entire idea behind compression → expansion that I talk about so frequently. I'm looking for tension building underneath major pivots, volatility contracting, volume drying up, and eventually buyers overwhelming the available supply. But there's another piece of this that I think matters even more than the entry itself, and it's something I wish I'd taken seriously during my first few years trading. My own equity curve has a HUGE influence on how aggressively I'm willing to trade either setup. I could wake up tomorrow and find 5 breakouts on my scans, but if my last several trades have been paper cuts, my positions aren't building cushion, and leaders keep failing to hold their gains, why would I suddenly start throwing meaningful capital at the market? That's something I used to struggle with. I'd convince myself that the next setup was going to be the one that finally worked, even though the market had been telling me for days that my edge wasn't being rewarded. Nowadays, I'm much more comfortable starting small and letting the market prove itself. Maybe I take a pilot position in a leader pulling back into its 9EMA. If it starts working, I build some cushion. Another setup appears and that one starts working too. Suddenly I've got multiple positions behaving the way I want them to, and my equity curve is beginning to confirm what I'm seeing on the charts. That's when I start thinking about progressively increasing exposure. I've gone from mostly cash to heavily invested within a matter of days before, not because I woke up and decided the market was going higher, but because my trades kept working and I had actual profits to lean against. The market earned my exposure. I didn't give it away because I felt bullish. And the opposite is equally important. If I'm taking consecutive losses and nothing is following through, I have no problem reducing exposure and sitting on my hands until something changes. I think this is where a lot of traders get frustrated. They'll find a strategy that works for a few months, experience a difficult stretch, and immediately assume they need to reinvent their entire system. Sometimes that's true, but majority of the time, the problem isn't your strategy at all. You're simply trying to force an entry tactic in an environment that isn't rewarding it. Here's something I'd encourage you to do if you've been struggling with this recently. Go back through your last 20-30 trades and separate your breakout entries from your pullback entries. Then look at what the market was doing when you took them. Were leaders holding their moving averages? Were breakouts sticking? Were you buying through resistance in a choppy environment, or buying against support in names showing RS? And were your positions actually building cushion, or were you constantly watching green trades turn red? You might start recognizing patterns in your own behavior that have absolutely nothing to do with your ability to identify a good stock. I've learned an unbelievable amount about myself by doing this over the years. And if you miss a breakout in a true leader, please don't convince yourself that you have to own it at any price. I've made that mistake more times than I'd like to admit. A stock can be up +10% from your original pivot and still be a fantastic company, but that doesn't mean it's offering a fantastic entry anymore. If it's truly a leader, there's a good chance it'll eventually give you another opportunity. Maybe that's an inside day, a tight flag, a pullback into the rising 9/21EMAs, an EMA crossback, or another multi-day base where you can define your risk again. I'd rather miss the first 10% of a much larger move than spend the next three weeks digging myself out of unnecessary losses because I couldn't stand watching something run without me. So when somebody asks whether I prefer breakouts or pullbacks, I genuinely don't think there's a universal answer. In a healthy trending market, I'm happy to buy strength as stocks expand out of major bases. In a choppy environment, I'd much rather look for weakness in established leaders and wait for buyers to prove themselves on the lower timeframes. And regardless of which entry I take, my thought process is essentially the same. I want a leading stock in a leading group, a meaningful area of interest on the weekly/daily chart, a tight lower-timeframe execution, and a logical place to be wrong. If my positions start working, I'll press. If they don't, I'll back off. I've spent the better part of 6+ years trying to become a better trader, and it's pretty funny how much of that improvement has come from simplifying things I used to make way too complicated. I'm not trying to perfect the entry, my goal is trying to get better at recognizing when the environment, the stock, and my own equity curve are all giving me permission to take risk. That's really what it comes down to for me. Everything else is just an entry tactic. My 2 cents.

I've been staring at charts all weekend like a complete psychopath, and apparently one corner of the market didn't get the memo that everything is supposed to be falling apart. $PLTR, $CRM, $RBRK, $PANW, $TWLO, $DDOG, $FROG, $SHOP + $EBAY are all names I've mentioned over the last week, and I don't think that's a coincidence. Software is one of the very few areas in the market where I'm consistently finding names that actually interest me. I think there's a pretty valuable lesson here about how money rotates through the market. While a lot of former leaders are breaking down, these names have been showing some pretty interesting RS, holding key pivots + attempting to build constructive structures. Money doesn't just disappear when one group starts underperforming. It often rotates into areas showing better relative strength. That's why I pay so much attention to clusters of stocks appearing on my scans. When multiple names in the same group start acting right, I want to know WHY. But here's where I think a lot of traders get themselves into trouble. Identifying where money is flowing doesn't automatically mean it's time to put meaningful risk on. I can recognize software as an area of interest while simultaneously acknowledging that the broader environment still isn't rewarding my style of swing trading. Those 2 things aren't mutually exclusive. My edge comes from positioning in leading stocks, finding tight asymmetric entries on the lower TF charts + progressively pressing when my positions start building cushion. I'm really not interested in reinventing my entire trading system just because the market has been difficult for a few weeks. What I've been doing now is I've been watching which of these names can hold their 9week, reclaim key daily pivots & build tight bases while the rest of the market struggles. If I see a defined setup, I'm happy to take a smaller pilot and let the trade tell me whether there's an edge worth pressing. If it fails, I take my paper cut and move on. Last week I brought up the example of how it's like fishing. If nine ponds aren't producing anything and one keeps showing signs of life, I'm going to spend my time studying that one. But that doesn't mean I'm casting every 5 minutes just because I see a few fish swimming around. 1) RS first (fish the healthy pond). 2) setup second (patience). 3) exposure LAST (execution). A simple framework that might be helpful to you moving forward. Long software.