Video summary

How to structure a Rejection block entry (Trade breakdown)

Main summary

Key takeaways

Finance

Finance / Trading Summary (Rejection Block Trade Breakdown)

Market / Timeframe Context

  • Date: July 1
  • Session: London session (used because the speaker was busy during New York AM)
  • Base chart timeframe: 1-hour
  • Execution/trigger timeframe: 5-minute (after the rejection structure formed)

Instruments / Tickers Mentioned

  • No explicit asset ticker was stated in the subtitles.
  • The speaker references NQ (Nasdaq futures) and “mini” as desk benchmarks in a course comment, but the actual trade instrument is not explicitly confirmed.
  • Fib level referenced: 0.79 (used as part of entry validation)

Macro / Fundamentals

  • No macroeconomic or company fundamentals discussed.
  • The approach is purely price-action/structure.

Key Setup Logic (Bias + Confluence)

Bearish bias was driven mainly by:

  • A new week opening gap down described as “completely unfilled”
    • Claim: unfilled new week opening gaps are “super super powerful” and can establish strong bias without needing extra confluence.

Additional 1-hour structural confluence mentioned:

  • Fair Value Gaps (FVGs) / sellside imbalances
  • A 1-hour “big wick” rejection

Core selection rule:

  • Use “premium vs discount”
    • Prefer levels in more favorable premium areas rather than taking shorts from deep discount.

Step-by-Step Framework / Methodology (As Described)

  1. Determine directional bias

    • Bearish here, driven primarily by the unfilled new week opening gap down.

  2. Mark 1-hour structure

    • Identify FVGs and sellside imbalances
    • Look for 1-hour wick rejection from key levels

  3. Select an entry region using “premium vs discount”

    • If the level is too deep in discount, avoid shorting there
    • Wait for price to reach a more favorable premium zone (the speaker mentions a “higher premium” target conceptually)

  4. Confirm the rejection block timing

    • The speaker says it is not a “rejection block” until the candle closes bearish
    • They disagree with the idea that the “rejection block is the top bullish close,” stating the candle close provides bearish confirmation

  5. Use a 5-minute entry after the 1-hour rejection

    • After sweeping/manipulation, place a limit near the rejection level on 5-minute

  6. Validate entry with Fib

    • Uses Fib to judge where entries “should be”
    • In one rejected area, the speaker described it as “too premium” and even beyond 0.79

  7. Trade management

    • If price breaks back above the relevant high after manipulation, the speaker would avoid holding
      • Stop concept: above the level / above the high depending on the specific attempt
    • Aims for “high RR with high win rate”
    • Avoids overly tight stops unless necessary

Trade Execution Details (Timeline / Levels)

  • Initial approach:

    • Price tapped the 1-hour gap/level
    • A first possible entry (a 5-minute rejection block) formed, but it was not taken because:
      • It was “too premium”
      • It was beyond Fib 0.79

  • Missed entry:

    • The speaker admits they missed the first entry due to being distracted.

  • Manipulation leg / retest:

    • Price sweeps out a high (described as a “manipulation move”)
    • After the sweep, they wait for another rejection block after the sweep

  • Limit order entry:

    • A limit order was placed “right at that level” around 40.47-something (exact digits unclear due to subtitle quality)

  • Stop-loss logic:

    • Stop placed above the manipulated high
      • Rationale: since price already manipulated, the speaker doesn’t want price to reclaim that high
    • The speaker contrasts this with older behavior of using wider stops (including times they used 2–3 point stops when financially stressed)

Risk Management & Performance Metrics (Explicit)

  • Stop-size philosophy:

    • The speaker notes stops could have been “above here” leading to a “three point stop”
    • They say they don’t do 3-point stops often anymore
    • Preference: higher probability + high RR, rather than relying on very specific wide stops

  • Past behavior / psychology:

    • If a loss was bigger than ~$200, the speaker would feel frustrated and consider revenge trading

  • Course pricing comparison (contextual):

    • Mentions $315 and that it’s “16 points on NQ with a mini” (framed as rationale, not a direct trade result)

Explicit Recommendations / Cautions

  • Don’t overcomplicate

    • “not rocket science”
    • Example flow: 1-hour level rejects → use a 5-minute entry from that level

  • Discretion / psychology emphasis

    • Trading is not just technicals—requires:
      • discipline
      • mental lock-in
      • self-awareness
    • Encourages writing down feelings throughout trades

  • Encouragement to viewers

    • Rewatch if unclear
    • Focus on making money, not “being right about the technicals”

Disclosures / Disclaimers

  • No standard “financial advice” disclaimer was visible in the provided subtitles.
  • The speaker emphasizes their approach is their own style, meant to be learned from—not treated as dogma.
  • Mentions critique of their course/identity, but no formal investment disclaimer appears in the excerpt.

Presenters / Sources

  • Presenter (implied): The YouTube creator/speaker (name not provided in subtitles)
  • Referenced methodology/source: ICT
    • The speaker references ICT conceptually (contrasting their own interpretation vs how ICT teaches rejection blocks) but does not provide a direct ICT quote in the subtitles.

Original video