ATR
AptarGroup, Inc.
stock NYSE

I’m a paper trader working on a simple intraday strategy, and I’d really appreciate feedback from traders who have been doing this for a while.
I’m not profitable live yet, and I’m not claiming this strategy is profitable. I’m specifically posting because I want experienced traders to point out what is wrong with it and help me make the rules more objective.
My goal is also important: I’m a business owner, not a full-time trader. I only want to spend roughly 30–90 minutes a day trading. I’m not looking for a strategy that requires me to sit in front of charts all day.
The basic setup
I’m currently experimenting mainly with:
\- XAUUSD (Gold)
\- EURUSD
\- AUDUSD
\- A few other highly liquid forex pairs
I’m testing primarily on the 5-minute chart, with the possibility of using 15-minute candles for additional confirmation.
The basic indicator is a 9 EMA.
SHORT setup
My current rules are roughly:
1. Price is trading above the 9 EMA.
2. I get two consecutive bullish candles that are clearly separated from / not touching the 9 EMA.
3. These candles occur near a meaningful resistance area or level.
4. Price shows rejection from that resistance.
5. I mark the range of those two candles.
6. I wait for a candle to break below the low of that two-candle range and close below it.
7. That candle becomes my short entry.
8. Stop loss goes above the rejection structure / above the two-candle area.
9. I aim for approximately 1:2, 1:3 or 1:4 R:R, depending on the structure and price action.
10. If the move develops strongly, I may trail the stop instead of taking a fixed target.
LONG setup
Basically the inverse:
1. Price is trading below the 9 EMA.
2. Two consecutive bearish candles are clearly away from the 9 EMA.
3. They occur near a meaningful support area.
4. Price rejects the support.
5. I mark the range of those two candles.
6. I wait for a candle to break above the high of the two-candle range and close above it.
7. That becomes my long entry.
8. Stop loss goes below the rejection structure.
9. Target is approximately 1:2, 1:3 or 1:4 R:R, depending on the setup.
Why I’m interested in this
From the paper trading I’ve done so far, I’m seeing roughly a 50% win rate, although I don't have enough properly structured data to claim that number is statistically meaningful.
The attractive part is the potential R:R.
Because the entry is based on a relatively small structure, the stop can sometimes be quite tight while the trade has room to capture a larger move.
The idea is essentially:
extension away from EMA → rejection at a meaningful level → two-candle structure → breakout/reversal confirmation → enter early in the move.
My biggest problem
The strategy currently produces way too many possible setups.
That's actually one of my biggest concerns.
I can find what looks like a setup almost everywhere on the chart if I loosen my interpretation of:
\- What qualifies as a “meaningful” support/resistance level
\- How far the candles need to be from the 9 EMA
\- What constitutes a valid rejection
\- How strong the two candles need to be
\- Whether the setup is happening in a good trading session
\- Whether the market is trending or ranging
At the moment, I'm manually marking key levels and also experimenting with an indicator that identifies levels, but some historical levels disappear/recalculate as new levels form.
So I don't yet have a sufficiently objective rulebook.
What I'm trying to solve
I want to turn this into a mechanical enough trading plan that I can execute consistently for 30–90 minutes a day.
For example, I'm wondering whether I should restrict myself to specific sessions such as:
\- London session
\- New York session
\- A specific overlap
\- Avoiding the first 15–30 minutes of a session
\- Avoiding certain periods of low volatility
I also want to avoid both extremes:
Too little volatility: price chops around and gives false signals.
Too much volatility: my stop gets taken out by a huge candle/spike before price moves in the intended direction.
What I REALLY want feedback on
If you have significant experience with intraday trading, I'd appreciate criticism rather than encouragement.
Specifically:
1. What filters would you add?
For example:
\- Higher-timeframe trend
\- VWAP
\- ATR/volatility filter
\- Session filter
\- Market structure
\- Volume
\- ADX
\- Previous day high/low
\- Asian session high/low
\- London/NY highs and lows
\- Something else
2. How would you define support/resistance objectively?
This is probably one of my biggest weaknesses right now.
3. Would you use 5-minute or 15-minute candles for this setup?
Or perhaps 15M for context and 5M for entries?
4. How would you properly backtest this?
I’m struggling because when I scroll through historical charts, I can't always determine whether the level/setup I see now would actually have been visible at that exact moment.
I don't want to accidentally use future information when judging historical setups.
5. What would you consider a valid rejection?
This is currently somewhat discretionary, and I'd like to make it much more objective.
6. Would you trade this only during specific sessions?
If so, which sessions/times would you test for XAUUSD and major FX pairs?
7. What would you change about the risk management?
Would you use:
\- Fixed 1:2?
\- Partial at 1:2 and trail?
\- Fixed 1:3?
\- ATR-based stop?
\- Structure-based stop?
\- Something else?
One important point
I'm not looking for someone to give me another random strategy.
I want to improve this specific concept and turn it into something that can be tested properly.
If you think the entire idea is flawed, that's also useful. I'd rather find that out now while I'm paper trading than convince myself that a strategy works because I've cherry-picked good-looking examples.
If you've traded something similar, I'd especially appreciate:
“I would keep X, remove Y, add Z, and here's why.”
And if possible, I'd love to hear from people who have actually systematically backtested similar setups, rather than just eyeballing charts.
Thanks.

Two traders can take the same setup at roughly the same price and still be taking two very different trades.
Take a breakout through resistance with volume. On the chart, it looks clean.
But maybe price has already traveled 1.5 ATR. Maybe the next meaningful liquidity area is six points higher while the trade needs eight points of room before the idea is actually wrong. Maybe three mega-caps are pulling the index through the level while breadth underneath is getting worse.
I’m looking at the same breakout differently now.
The setup is still there. The quality of the trade isn’t.
There are five things I usually care about before putting risk on:
**Location × Regime × Participation × Asymmetry × Execution**
Not a formula. More a way of making sure I’m not trading a pattern in isolation.
# Location
Where is this happening?
Prior high or low, overnight extremes, VWAP, opening range, high-volume areas, low-volume areas, previous acceptance or rejection.
A breakout in the middle of nowhere is different from one coming out of an area the market has been fighting over all morning.
And a level by itself still doesn’t give me direction. It gives me a place to watch what happens next.
# Regime
A breakout in a trending market is not the same trade in a balanced market.
Neither is a mean-reversion setup when volatility is expanding.
This is one of the easiest things to miss because the chart pattern can look almost identical.
The market around it isn’t.
# Participation
For an index trade, I want to know what is moving with it.
Are related indices confirming? Is breadth improving or deteriorating? Which sectors are carrying the move? Are the largest weights doing all the work?
I watch volume too, but “high volume” by itself doesn’t tell me much.
What interests me is what happens after price leaves the level. Does participation build with the move, or does it dry up once the first burst of orders goes through?
I’ll put more weight behind one than the other.
# Asymmetry
This is where a lot of trades that look good on a chart stop making sense.
Say I think there are 15 points of upside.
Sounds good.
But if the structure says I need to give the trade 12 points before I’m wrong, I’m risking 12 to realistically make 15.
Now give me the same 15-point opportunity with a four-point structural invalidation.
I may have the same directional view in both cases.
I definitely don’t have the same trade.
That distinction matters. You can be right about where the market is going and still have no business taking the position.
# Execution
Only then am I thinking about how I want in.
Do I want the breakout itself or the retest? Can I use a limit or do I need to cross the spread? Do I start smaller and add if the level holds? Where does the first piece come off?
And I want to know what I’ll do if the trade doesn’t behave the way I expected.
If price breaks out and immediately gets accepted back below the level, that matters.
If it moves my way but everything that confirmed the entry starts disappearing, that matters too.
I’d rather make those decisions before I have money moving on the screen.
# Then there’s time
I don’t treat the same setup at 9:35, 12:15 and 3:45 as if they are interchangeable.
The participants are different. Liquidity is different. Volatility is different. The reason people are trading can be different.
Same problem around scheduled events.
If CPI is five minutes away, I’m not pretending the setup in front of me exists in a vacuum.
So when everything is lined up, I still ask whether the trade is worth taking *here*.
Sometimes the location is good but the market is too balanced.
Sometimes the breakout is real but I’m too late and the next obstacle is too close.
Sometimes I like the direction but hate the risk.
Sometimes I simply missed it.
Those aren’t necessarily bad reads.
They’re reasons not to trade.
That’s the part screenshots rarely capture. You see the pattern that worked. You don’t see all the conditions around it that made taking the risk reasonable in the first place.
The candle pattern wasn’t the edge.
The level wasn’t the edge.
And getting the direction right wasn’t enough.
**The edge was knowing when the setup was actually worth taking.**

I agree with the comments saying to define the pullback first instead of just searching for an indicator. ATR + lower volume on the retrace makes more sense to me than RSI alone. I use Moon and thats usually what I watch for before taking a continuation setup.

Is the R calculation ATR based?
After picking up 10 stocks to track, what if better opportunity shows up, what does the system do?

Two traders can take the same setup at roughly the same price and still be taking two very different trades.
Take a breakout through resistance with volume. On the chart, it looks clean.
But maybe price has already traveled 1.5 ATR. Maybe the next meaningful liquidity area is six points higher while the trade needs eight points of room before the idea is actually wrong. Maybe three mega-caps are pulling the index through the level while breadth underneath is getting worse.
I’m looking at the same breakout differently now.
The setup is still there. The quality of the trade isn’t.
There are five things I usually care about before putting risk on:
**Location × Regime × Participation × Asymmetry × Execution**
Not a formula. More a way of making sure I’m not trading a pattern in isolation.
# Location
Where is this happening?
Prior high or low, overnight extremes, VWAP, opening range, high-volume areas, low-volume areas, previous acceptance or rejection.
A breakout in the middle of nowhere is different from one coming out of an area the market has been fighting over all morning.
And a level by itself still doesn’t give me direction. It gives me a place to watch what happens next.
# Regime
A breakout in a trending market is not the same trade in a balanced market.
Neither is a mean-reversion setup when volatility is expanding.
This is one of the easiest things to miss because the chart pattern can look almost identical.
The market around it isn’t.
# Participation
For an index trade, I want to know what is moving with it.
Are related indices confirming? Is breadth improving or deteriorating? Which sectors are carrying the move? Are the largest weights doing all the work?
I watch volume too, but “high volume” by itself doesn’t tell me much.
What interests me is what happens after price leaves the level. Does participation build with the move, or does it dry up once the first burst of orders goes through?
I’ll put more weight behind one than the other.
# Asymmetry
This is where a lot of trades that look good on a chart stop making sense.
Say I think there are 15 points of upside.
Sounds good.
But if the structure says I need to give the trade 12 points before I’m wrong, I’m risking 12 to realistically make 15.
Now give me the same 15-point opportunity with a four-point structural invalidation.
I may have the same directional view in both cases.
I definitely don’t have the same trade.
That distinction matters. You can be right about where the market is going and still have no business taking the position.
# Execution
Only then am I thinking about how I want in.
Do I want the breakout itself or the retest? Can I use a limit or do I need to cross the spread? Do I start smaller and add if the level holds? Where does the first piece come off?
And I want to know what I’ll do if the trade doesn’t behave the way I expected.
If price breaks out and immediately gets accepted back below the level, that matters.
If it moves my way but everything that confirmed the entry starts disappearing, that matters too.
I’d rather make those decisions before I have money moving on the screen.
# Then there’s time
I don’t treat the same setup at 9:35, 12:15 and 3:45 as if they are interchangeable.
The participants are different. Liquidity is different. Volatility is different. The reason people are trading can be different.
Same problem around scheduled events.
If CPI is five minutes away, I’m not pretending the setup in front of me exists in a vacuum.
So when everything is lined up, I still ask whether the trade is worth taking *here*.
Sometimes the location is good but the market is too balanced.
Sometimes the breakout is real but I’m too late and the next obstacle is too close.
Sometimes I like the direction but hate the risk.
Sometimes I simply missed it.
Those aren’t necessarily bad reads.
They’re reasons not to trade.
That’s the part screenshots rarely capture. You see the pattern that worked. You don’t see all the conditions around it that made taking the risk reasonable in the first place.
The candle pattern wasn’t the edge.
The level wasn’t the edge.
And getting the direction right wasn’t enough.
**The edge was knowing when the setup was actually worth taking.**

**yo tengo uno q me viene funcionando r bien y te dan 10 dias gratis**
* **Mercado:** Binance USDT-M Futures (Contratos Perpetuos).
* **Marco Temporal:** **15 minutos (**`15m`**)** con análisis contextual de **1 hora (**`1h`**)**.
* **Motor de IA:** `LightGBMRegressor` (Árboles de Decisión Ensamble de Microsoft vía FreqAI).
* **Dirección Operativa:** **Bidireccional (LONG y SHORT)**.
* **Apalancamiento:** **2.0x aislado** (diseñado para maximizar ganancias sin riesgo de liquidación).
* A diferencia de los indicadores tradicionales rígidos (que suelen dar señales tardías), el Bot 2 utiliza **Machine Learning Predictivo**:
1. **Extracción de Factores:** En cada vela de 15 minutos, calcula más de 30 indicadores técnicos avanzados (RSI, MFI, Distancia a Medias Móviles EMA, Ancho de Bandas de Bollinger, ATR% y Fuerza Direccional ADX).
2. **Predicción de Retorno a Futuro:** El modelo calcula una proyección: *"¿Cuánto se moverá el precio en las próximas 24 velas (6 horas)?"*.
3. **Criterio de Entrada:** Solo abre una posición si la predicción de subida o bajada supera con holgura el `±1.0%` de movimiento limpio.

Man, this sucks. Kotak Bank was in a range the whole day. And now it has closed down losing all the gains from past 2 days..
Plus there is a big gap in the chart now. This CAS has destroyed the technical analysis completely. MAs, ATR, everything has gone haywire..

Filed with sebi as well as cyber, will visit Investigative officer tomorrow to explain him all the facts of the case.
Received ATR on sebi complaint from the sebi registered person where he said he has become aware of the scam happening using his registration number and some unknown person is scamming people of money.
I then filed first level review where I said this is not a satisfactory response and he cannot merely say that unknown person is scamming people and I need sebi designated body to independently investigate.

Two things going on, and neither is mysterious.
First, your 4-5 strategies aren't really 4-5 strategies. They all share the same 15m VSA confirmation, so it's one filter wearing five hats — and that filter is long the post-2023 gold regime (persistent trend, bigger ATR). At 1:2 RR, a 40% win rate prints money in a trending market and 25-33% bleeds in chop. Different POIs don't diversify you as much as it feels like they should when the confirmation is shared.
Second, and the bigger one: you built these while looking at recent charts. Whatever looked good on 2024+ data got kept. That means pre-2023 IS your out-of-sample result — the drop isn't strange, it's the honest readout of how much of the edge is regime-specific fit.
Quick checks: split results by regime (trend vs range — ADX or distance from a slow MA) rather than by calendar date; rerun everything with the VSA confirmation removed and see what survives; nudge the ATR multiple and RR +/-20% and see if it falls apart. If small nudges kill it, it was fitted, not found.
Not saying they're dead — gold may well keep trending. But then it's a regime bet, and it's better to know that's the bet you're making.

ahhh I'm very simple, im trading GBPUSD only, so my personal rule of thumb is to impose a 5pip minimum on each trade to cover costs/spreads, and that generally works out for > 3000units and >10pip take profit. So my algos that have that baked in - a penalty of 5 pips per trade when training. Theres also penalties for unrealised drawdowns. If I impose penalties (which I have to, cause my account size is small) for the frequency of trades, then mostly it will find the deep pullbacks, which seem decent enough. tp/sl are some multiple of ATR or some other measure of volatility, the model does give confidences 0 to 1 which ive tried using for position sizing, but right now since im using the cross entropy output layer its pretty much jacked up at 0.95 to 1 so it make s little difference, although I could try re-scaling that after. The other style of algo that I've tried on demo account, is basically "every hour, buy in the direction of the long term trend, with a position size proportional to the trend strength and a large tp /sl " and then close out when average position profit is > pos\_tp or the long term trend changes, or maybe at the end of day / week you want to take some profit, and honestly that appears to work quite well, and although its many trades the average per trade works out much higher than my 5pip minimum that I require.