Stop post-hoc rationalizations after defeat: put fact and interpretation in a separate column
Is there a night when you can always find a reason for failure on a losing chart?
How can we avoid writing improvement plans until we fill in the facts column?
This time, we will organize the "facts and interpretations" in the order of price reactions visible before the order was placed.
Good evening!
This is Masashi ^^
? Separate Facts and Interpretations to Stop After-Lactating (After Loss) in a Separate Column
On nights when a losing chart makes it easy to find many reasons for failure, emotions tend to move before the usual sequence.
The focus this time is the "facts and interpretations." Rather than flashy predictions, we will specify where to stop making judgments.
In facts and interpretations, do not use GOLD as the answer as a special remedy,
and treat it as a material to confirm before filling the facts column to avoid writing improvement plans.
To put it bluntly, the standard this week is not to think that a long reflective essay is an accurate retrospective.
? Decide in advance where the facts and interpretations break down
What tends to happen in practice is that on a losing chart night, you can find many reasons for failure.
What to avoid at this time is making reasons that were not visible at the time into facts with the benefit of hindsight.
If your feelings are ahead, first confirm only the price reaction visible before placing the order.
If you progress to the next item without explaining the first one in facts and interpretations, displays and knowledge will turn into excuses.
Therefore, if the "price reaction visible before the order" is vague, you may revert to not writing improvement plans until you fill in the facts column.
Situations where you cannot explain the price reaction visible before placing the order will not move to orders or holdings decision-making.
The first stop line is "I do not think a long reflective essay is a precise retrospective." I will keep this in mind first.
? Reconstruct not reflecting all losses with one chart, from facts and interpretations
When you look at the completed chart, both the correct entry and exit become obvious easily.
This time, I will leave as 1-1 the connection with the price reactions visible before the order.
We will look at from the outcome, asking only if at that place you could say you were up against the wall.
This time, I will leave as 1-2 the connection with the interpretation chosen at that time.
But in practice, information seen before entry, information increased while holding, and hesitation before stop loss are separate.
This time, I will leave as 1-3 the connection with the explanation added after the result.
Therefore, the retrospective starts with "what facts were visible before entering."
This time, I will leave as 1-4 the connection with the price reaction visible before the order.
Mixing these three leads to too many causes, making it hard to decide what to fix next.
This time, I will leave as 1-5 the connection with the interpretation chosen at that time.
First, along the flow of time, divide the judgments into three parts.
This time, I will leave as 1-6 the connection with the explanation added after the result.
In terms of the criteria of facts and interpretations, we divide losses into three judgment moments rather than one result.
To color-code facts, the judgments at the time, and post-hoc interpretations, I will trace in order so as to narrow the places to fix to one.
? Reconstruct from the facts when you retrieved what you saw before entering
First, write only the facts you actually saw before the order.
This time, I will leave as 2-1 the connection with the interpretation chosen at that time.
Check whether the location, the immediate flow, and the stop-loss level remained in words from that time.
This time, I will leave as 2-2 the connection with the explanation added after the result.
Reasons added after seeing the result will be removed at this stage.
This time, I will leave as 2-3 the connection with the price reaction visible before the order.
If the pre-entry explanation was brief, the next time to fix is not a method but pre-checks.
This time, I will leave as 2-4 the connection with the interpretation chosen at that time.
In terms of the criteria of facts and interpretations, only keep facts that can be explained even if the results are hidden.
As a helper line to color-code facts, the judgments at the time are still visible even if you remove post-hoc analyses.
? Reconstruct from what you changed during holding, to find only changes
Next, look at the moment you changed your initial plan while holding a position.
This time, I will leave as 3-1 the connection with the explanation added after the result.
Extended targets, widened stop losses, added another justification.
This time, I will leave as 3-2 the connection with the price reaction visible before the order.
Even if the entry decision wasn’t bad, changing the plan during holding results in a different outcome.
This time, I will leave as 3-3 the connection with the interpretation chosen at that time.
Return to the GOLD remedy concept, separating the initial expectation and the mid-course changes and record them.
This time, I will leave as 3-4 the connection with the explanation added after the result.
In terms of the criteria of facts and interpretations, even if the entry is the same, changing the plan during holding makes it a different trade.
As a helper line to color-code facts, the point to watch is whether the market changed or you changed your plan for personal reasons.
✅ To put into words the one minute before stop loss, reconstructed from facts and interpretations
Lastly, write what you were thinking just before stopping out.
This time, I will leave as 4-1 the connection with the price reaction visible before the order.
Maybe it will come back, I want to wait a little longer, I can't cut it now that we've come this far.
This time, I will leave as 4-2 the connection with the interpretation chosen at that time.
Compare this word with the initial stop-loss position.
This time, I will leave as 4-3 the connection with the explanation added after the result.
Next time, if the same word appears, decide to return to the plan. This is how you use review.
This time, I will leave as 4-4 the connection with the price reaction visible before the order.
In terms of the criteria of facts and interpretations, the hesitation before stopping out becomes a warning you can use in the next attempt.
As a helper line to color-code facts, the emotions should not be blamed, and you should identify which word signaled a plan change.
? For those who revert to the same loss even after reflecting, reconstruct from facts and interpretations
Someone who writes long reflections every time, yet collapses at the same place next time.
This time, I will leave as 5-1 the connection with the interpretation chosen at that time.
People who change the method every time they lose, and have no records to compare.
This time, I will leave as 5-2 the connection with the explanation added after the result.
Only revisit the entry and do not review holding and stop-loss before.
This time, I will leave as 5-3 the connection with the price reaction visible before the order.
Such people need educational material to separate judgments in time before increasing knowledge.
This time, I will leave as 5-4 the connection with the interpretation chosen at that time.
In terms of the criteria of facts and interpretations, rather than increasing the amount of reflection, narrow down the next place to fix to one.
As a helper line to color-code facts, the GOLD remedy should be used to divide losses into units that you can fix yourself.
? Change is measured by the number of times you color-code facts, current judgments, and post-hoc
To express the current usage plainly,
on nights when you can find many reasons for failure on a losing chart, the order of checks changes each time.
If you continue like this, with hindsight you will make reasons unseen at the time into facts,
and even if you review facts and interpretations, you will still face the problem of not being able to compare the same situation.
Therefore, change to a form where you do not write improvement plans until you fill in the facts column.
In records, when you lay out the scenes you used and the facts, the judgments at that time, and post-hoc color-coding,
make the differences between facts and interpretations visible.
For seven days, continue only color-coding facts, judgments at the time, and post-hoc, so that you can compare changes under the same conditions.
The numbers you look at after purchase are not just profit. It is also important to measure changes by the number of times you color-code facts, judgments at the time, and post-hoc.
One-week check: when you lay out the scenes you used and the facts, the judgments at that time, and post-hoc color-coding, you can see the differences between facts and interpretations, and you compare the same scene the following week.
? The meaning of spending money and time on facts and interpretations
In particular, those who reflect a lot but cannot decide one item to fix.
In practice, since you do not write improvement plans until the facts column is filled, you can create a change during the decision-making process.
The reason for purchase is not to buy a new forecast, but to have an environment where you do not think a long reflective essay is an accurate retrospective.
When starting, it is enough to begin with a single sentence: "Check: price reaction visible before the order."
On the other hand, please confirm before buying that you will leave only records that can be explained even if you erase the results.
If your concern overlaps with the scene of "stop the post-loss postmortem in a separate facts and interpretations column," the reason to have GOLD remedies is clear: it helps you divide losses into units you can fix yourself.
Purchase decision: If you are someone whose reflections are many but you cannot decide one item to fix, compare by how your daily actions change, not by a function name.
? One thing to change today and a summary
Then, for those who reflect a lot but cannot decide one item to fix, which item should you change in your first move tomorrow?
It is good to start by writing in one sentence: "Check: price reaction visible before the order."
This week's theme was "facts and interpretations."
What to confirm are the price reaction visible before the order, the interpretation chosen at that time, and the explanation added after the result.
If the three do not connect, choose not to write improvement plans until you fill in the facts column.
The GOLD remedy used in facts and interpretations is a decision-making material to avoid thinking that long reflective essays are accurate retrospectives, and it does not guarantee profits.
If you have many reflections but cannot decide one item to fix, please try the same recording for one week to confirm^^
If you are hesitating over "separating facts and interpretations to stop post-loss after loss," before waiting for the next market, decide the order in which you use the GOLD remedy.
Purchase check: For "separating facts and interpretations to stop post-loss after loss," decide what to reduce from your current judgment rather than what to increase with GOLD remedy.
Thank you always for reading^^