[Post-cut review] Check whether the rules were adjusted more than the amount

Regret after a stop-loss connects to the next move when you look at the rule you moved, not the amount.

Good evening!

This is Masashi^^

After a stop-loss, the amount tends to linger strongly.

It's easy to think, I could have waited a bit longer, or I could have lowered the lot size to endure.

However, the next place to fix is not the loss amount itself.

Whether you moved the rules decided before the order or not in the middle is what matters!

This week, regrets after the stop-loss are connected to the next step when you look at the rule you moved, not the amount.

❌ Do not start with reflection just on the loss amount

In the initial scene, reflecting from the amount makes it easier to think about orders to recover next time.

What often happens is that if you label the correct stop-loss as a failure, you discard the actions you protected.

Where to look is to search for the points that were planned from the start.

Don’t rush to conclusions; start by looking for the points that were as planned at the beginning.

Actual records are left as [Protected points: fixed lot / Unstable points: orders before confirmation of a rebound].

If you keep the protected points, you can revise only the parts without changing everything.

If you skip this, treating a correct stop-loss as a failure will cause you to discard protected actions.

[Protected points: fixed lot / Unstable points: orders before confirmation of a rebound] can be used for the next day's comparison.

In the next trade, for the next order, only the unstable points will be the target for review.

After that, revisit ✅ Do not start reflection only on the loss amount and record only the changed conditions.

When reviewing the screen, also start by searching for the points that were planned at the beginning.

If unsure, return to [Protected points: fixed lot / Unstable points: orders before confirmation of a rebound].

Make it your stopping line to seek what was planned at the start.

? Example: Protected points: fixed lot / Unstable points: orders before confirming a rebound

✅ Find the moment you moved the rule

Before closing the chart, even if you decide stop-loss positions at order time, you may widen them in your mind while holding the position.

At that time, if the change time isn’t recorded, it appears you had a broader plan from the start.

So, what should you verify first?

This is determined by laying out the price before and after the change to return the judgment to its original order.

Actual record left as [Change record: widened from 2358.4 to 2355.8 / Reason: expectation to return].

By lining up the numbers, you can separate market judgment from the emotions of loss avoidance.

If you skip this, and the change time isn’t recorded, it will look like you had a broader plan from the start.

[Change record: widened from 2358.4 to 2355.8 / Reason: expectation to return] can be used for the next day's comparison.

In the next trade, before touching the change button, you will read the reason first.

After that, revisit ✅ Find the exact moment you moved the rule and record only the changed conditions.

When reviewing the screen, also verify by lining up the prices before and after the change.

If unsure, return to [Change record: widened from 2358.4 to 2355.8 / Reason: expectation to return].

Make lining up the prices before and after the change your stopping line this time.

? Example: Change record: widened from 2358.4 to 2355.8 / Reason: expectation to return

? Keep the initial stop-loss position as an image

When reviewing records, charts after settlement alone do not show the original exit.

At that time, if the exit disappears, you cannot tell which part was planned and which part was a doubt.

Look at saving the screen right after the order, including the stop-loss line.

Don’t rush to conclusions; start by saving the screen that includes the stop-loss line right after the order.

Actual record left as [Image name: 0910_buy_plan_SL2358.4].

If the price and direction are in the image name, you’ll spend less time later searching.

If you skip this, when the exit disappears, you cannot determine what was planned and what was doubt.

【Image name: 0910_buy_plan_SL2358.4】is usable for the next day’s comparison.

In the next trade, after settlement, write the same result to the same image, not a different plan.

Then,? Revisit Keep the initial stop-loss position as an image and record only the changed conditions.

When reviewing the screen, also start by saving the screen that includes the stop-loss line right after the order.

If unsure, return to 【Image name: 0910_buy_plan_SL2358.4】.

Saving a screen that includes the stop-loss line right after the order becomes your stopping line this time.

? Example: Image name: 0910_buy_plan_SL2358.4

⚠ Have you eliminated the postponement condition midway?

When doubt arises, even if you were cautious before entering, looking at signals can loosen the conditions.

What often happens is that orders that skip postponement cannot be reproduced next time even if you win.

Look at placing side-by-side the order history and the pre-memo.

Don’t rush to conclusions; start by placing the order history and pre-memo side by side.

Actual record left as [Precondition: skip high-price peak / Execution: bought near the high price].

Identifying condition violations independent of win/loss prevents next improvements from wobbling.

If you skip this, orders that skip postponement cannot be reproduced next time even if they win.

[Precondition: skip high-price peak / Execution: bought near the high price] can be used for the next day’s comparison.

In the next practice, next time, if the distance to the high price is not enough, close the screen.

After that, revisit ⚠ Have you deleted postponement conditions midway and record only changed conditions.

When reviewing the screen, also verify by placing the order history and pre-memo side by side.

If unsure, return to [Precondition: skip high-price peak / Execution: bought near the high price].

Place side by side order history and pre-memo as this stopping line.

? Example: Precondition: skip high-price peak / Execution: bought near the high price

? Count the correct stop-loss as a success

What matters here is that if you cut at the planned position and then the price comes back, you feel like you failed.

What often happens is that evaluating the exit based on the return will cause you to delay stop-loss next time.

Look at whether you kept to the plan at the time of settlement.

Don’t rush to conclusions; start by judging whether you kept the plan at settlement time.

Actual record left as [Judgment: loss occurred / Cancel condition kept / No additional orders].

If you divide into three items, you can see improvements in actions even if the profit is red.

If you skip this, evaluating the exit from the returned result will cause you to delay stop-loss next time.

[Judgment: loss occurred / Cancel condition kept / No additional orders] can be used for the next day’s comparison.

In the next practice, for a week, also record the number of times you kept the stop-loss.

After that,? Revisit Count correct stop-loss as a success and record only the changed conditions.

When reviewing the screen, also verify by judging whether you kept the plan at settlement time.

If unsure, return to [Judgment: loss occurred / Cancel condition kept / No additional orders].

Make judging whether you kept the plan at settlement time your stopping line this time.

? Example: Judgment: loss occurred / Cancel condition kept / No additional orders

? Decide the interval until re-entry

In practice, right after stop-loss you tend to re-enter in the same direction to recover.

What often happens is re-entering without evidence because the price just moved, closing the previous hypothesis.

Look at whether there is new justification before re-entry.

Don’t rush to conclusions; start by checking for new justification before re-entry.

Actual record left as [Re-entry condition: both a new low break and a back high updated].

If there is no new justification, it’s not a new entry but an extension of the same order.

If you skip this, re-entry without verification will disturb judgment more than the initial loss.

[Re-entry condition: both a new low break and a back high updated] can be used for the next day’s comparison.

In the next practice, until the conditions align, even if a signal appears, observe only.

Then,? Revisit Decide interval to re-entry and record only changed conditions.

When reviewing the screen, also verify by checking new justification before re-entry.

If unsure, return to [Re-entry condition: both a new low break and a back high updated].

Make checking new justification before re-entry your stopping line this time.

? Example: Re-entry condition: both a new low break and a back high updated

? Narrow items to fix within a week

What you want to keep for the next day is not to change lot, entry, and exit for every stop-loss, as that makes comparison impossible.

What happens is the more changes there are, the harder it is to explain what worked the following week.

Look at correcting only the most frequent violation.

Don’t rush to conclusions; start by fixing only the most frequent violation.

Actual record left as [This week's fixes: zero rebounds before confirmation].

Limiting the scope allows five days of comparison with the same conditions.

If you skip this, the more changes, the harder it is to explain what worked the following week.

[This week's fixes: zero orders before rebound confirmation] can be used for the next day’s comparison.

In the next practice, keep lot size and stop-loss width fixed and only watch how you enter.

Then,? Revisit Narrow items to fix within a week and record only changed conditions.

When reviewing the screen, also verify by fixing only the most frequent violations.

If unsure, return to [This week's fixes: zero orders before rebound confirmation].

Make fixing only the most frequent violations this stopping line.

? Example: This week's fixes: zero orders before rebound confirmation

? Link to Friday's article

During weekend reviews, even if you try to follow the rules, reviewing AI or signals repeatedly increases confusion.

What often happens is that using a convenient tool as a substitute for security leads you to rewrite the decided conditions.

Look at deciding the purpose of opening tools before placing orders.

Don’t rush to conclusions; start by deciding the purpose of opening tools before ordering.

Actual record left as [Purpose: not to increase candidates, but to confirm postponement conditions].

Once the purpose is set, even after viewing the display you can return to your own cancel conditions.

If you skip this, substituting convenient tools for security will lead you to rewrite the decided conditions.

[Purpose: not to increase candidates, but to confirm postponement conditions] can be used for the next day’s comparison.

In the next practice, Friday should proceed with a method that does not increase decisions by convenience.

Then,? Revisit Link Friday's article and record only the changed conditions.

When reviewing the screen, also decide the purpose of opening tools before ordering.

If unsure, return to [Purpose: not to increase candidates, but to confirm postponement conditions].

Decide the purpose of opening tools before ordering as this stopping line.

? Example: Purpose: not to increase candidates, but to confirm postponement conditions

? Make the second trade after settlement a separate order

Before thinking about the next one, right after a stop-loss, treat the order to wipe out the previous loss as a new opportunity.

What often happens is you close the previous hypothesis and re-enter simply because the price moved.

Look at writing the cancellation reason, then check the place with a blank slate.

Don’t rush to conclusions; start by writing the cancellation reason and then check the location with a blank slate.

Actual record left as [Recheck: even if the previous loss is zero, will you make this place a new candidate?]

Separating order purposes lets you distinguish the urge to recover from new conditions.

If you skip this, you will re-enter without closing the previous hypothesis just because the price changed.

[Recheck: even if the previous loss is zero, will you make this place a new candidate?] can be used for the next day's comparison.

In the next practice, if you cannot rewrite the location, suspend re-entries for that day.

Then,? Revisit Do not make the second order immediately after settlement and record only changed conditions.

When reviewing the screen, also verify by writing the cancellation reason and then checking the place on a blank slate.

If unsure, return to [Recheck: even if the previous loss is zero, will you make this place a new candidate?].

Make writing the cancellation reason and then checking the place on a blank slate your stopping line this time.

? Example: Recheck: even if the previous loss is zero, will you make this place a new candidate?

⭕ Add a protected stop-loss to the weekly record

When laying out a week, listing only losses makes it hard to distinguish correct withdrawals from failures.

What often happens is that protected operations disappear, and the next week you choose improvements that delay the exit.

Look at counting the number of times you protected the stop-loss independent of profit.

Don’t rush to conclusions; start by counting how many times you protected the stop-loss separate from profit.

Actual record left as [Weekly record: three stop-losses / two cancellations complied / one position change].

Separating operations allows you to narrow down what to fix to one item.

If you skip this, protected operations disappear and the next week you choose to delay the exit.

[Weekly record: three stop-losses / two cancellations complied / one position change] can be used for the next day's comparison.

In the next practice, for the following week, fix only the most frequent violation and keep other conditions fixed.

Then,? Revisit Add protected stop-loss to the weekly record and record only changed conditions.

When reviewing the screen, also count how many times you protected the cancellations independent of profit.

If unsure, return to [Weekly record: three stop-losses / two cancellations complied / one position change].

Count how many times you protected the cancellations separate from profit as this week's stopping line.

? Example: Weekly record: three stop-losses / two cancellations complied / one position change

? Summary

After a stop-loss, look for rules you moved before the amount.

Keep the initial stop-loss position, the time you changed it, and the postponed condition you removed. Save these three.

A plan-compliant stop-loss is a correct action even if it doesn’t bring profit.

Conversely, even if you happen to rebound to profit, a canceled condition order becomes an area for improvement.

With this distinction, you can reduce the number of next-order attempts to recover.

Golden Line Sniper AI is not a tool to decide the entry; it is a helper to find a path back to your own conditions.

Please see it not as a decision-maker for you, but as a guide to return to your own conditions.

? This week's standard: prioritizing records that let you return to a pre-order state rather than explanations of results.

View details of Golden Line Sniper AI

Thank you again for reading to the end today as well ^^