Video: Fix your Price Action trading in under 4 minutes
Creator: Tradeciety.com
Original Video: Watch the original video
Difficulty: Intermediate
The Big Idea
A break beneath support can be only the beginning of a setup. This lesson examines a deeper return toward the broken area, a rejection of that return, and subsequent bearish momentum. Separating those stages prevents the first breakdown from being treated as complete evidence.
Why the First Close Is Not the Whole Story
The source starts with an old resistance area that has become support and a sequence of lower highs. A trader selling the first close beneath support may face a strong rally back through the boundary before the decline resumes. The creator favors waiting through that return instead of assuming the initial break is enough.
The proposed advantage is better information about how price behaves at the broken area. It is not that every deep retest must eventually decline. The market can reclaim the old support and continue upward; waiting creates a different observation, not a guaranteed outcome.
The creator also argues that straightforward breakouts have become less successful over recent years and describes the pattern as applicable across markets and timeframes. The supplied transcript does not provide a dataset that establishes either broad claim. Treat them as motivations for a comparison, not settled conclusions.
Break the Sequence Into Observable Events
| Stage | What is visible | What remains unknown |
|---|---|---|
| Breakdown | Price closes below a previously recorded support. | Whether the break will continue or fail. |
| Deep retest | Price rallies back through or above the broken area. | Whether the rally will be accepted or rejected. |
| Rejection | The rally loses ground near that area. | Whether selling will actually expand afterward. |
| Confirmation | A later bearish close supplies the predefined momentum event. | Whether the trade will reach a chosen objective. |
This sequence matters because the retest can be forceful. A large bullish candle into the area is not itself bearish confirmation. The source wants evidence of rejection and then a renewed downward response. Entering merely because price has returned to an anticipated stop area skips the final part of the idea.
The phrase stop run is an interpretation of where some participants may place orders. OHLC candles show the excursion and response; they do not identify every stop order or prove deliberate targeting. The same observed path can arise from several mixtures of trading activity.
Define Deep and Strong Before Reviewing Examples
The source does not prescribe a numerical depth, a universal candle-body threshold, or a fixed time allowed for confirmation. To make a research version reproducible, the indicator introduces an explicit approximation: a breakdown through a confirmed pivot low, a later high at least 0.25 prior ATR above the frozen level with a close below it, and a subsequent bearish close below the previous bar’s low.
The confirmation body must be at least 0.5 prior ATR by default. These thresholds are ours. A multi-candle rejection that never produces the particular coded event may fit the creator’s discretionary reading while producing no marker in this simplified version.
ATR scales the thresholds to recent chart volatility. It does not establish an economic edge. Record the absolute depth as well as the ATR multiple, especially around abrupt volatility changes where a recent average can lag the current environment.
A Confirmed Pivot Has a Delay
The default support candidate is a pivot with two bars on each side. The low is not known as a confirmed pivot until the second bar to its right closes. The gray line starts representing the reference only after that information exists.
The code does not place a historical entry on the original low. Once a breakdown occurs, it freezes that support value so newly confirmed pivots cannot move the active setup’s boundary. This preserves the sequence being investigated rather than letting the definition drift with later price action.
Waiting improves information, but may reduce the ratio
The following prices are fictional and omit execution costs.
| Observation | Calculation or rule | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Initial break | Support 100; first breakdown close 99.80 | An early sell has not yet observed the retest. |
| Deep rejection | Later high 100.40; close 99.90 | The rebound traded above support and failed to hold. |
| Confirmation proposal | Later bearish close 99.50; hypothetical stop 100.50; objective 98.00 | Risk 1.00 and reward 1.50: 1.5R before costs. |
| Late execution | Fill 99.20 with the same stop and objective | Risk 1.30; reward 1.20: approximately 0.92R. |
The stop and objective in this worked example are original teaching assumptions. The source allows several targeting approaches, including a prior low, a separate supply/demand reference, or another existing method. It does not disclose a single universal exit model.
Distinguish a Rejection From a Reclaim
A candle that closes well above the broken area can be evidence against a short hypothesis. The proxy cancels a setup after a recorded rejection if a later close exceeds that rejection’s high. It also expires after thirty bars from the breakdown by default.
Before rejection is recorded, a rally is not automatically rejected merely because it crossed the old level. This is intentional: the source’s central example is precisely a deep return before the subsequent decline. The code waits for its required close back below the level instead of interpreting every excursion as confirmation.
Only one setup is tracked at a time. New breakdown candidates are ignored while it is active, and replacement is deferred until a later bar after confirmation, expiry, or invalidation. This can exclude opportunities that a discretionary trader might have selected elsewhere.
Read the Source’s Confidence as a Hypothesis
The transcript describes the final bearish response with strong confidence, but no frequency estimate or full sample is supplied. A compelling example can explain the pattern without establishing its win rate. It is particularly easy to overlook retests that never reject when reviewing charts backward.
A useful record begins before the outcome: freeze the support, save the first breakdown, and mark each stage’s availability time. Include every breakdown meeting the same initial rule. Otherwise the confirmation method benefits from excluding failures without accounting for how many opportunities it declined.
Pine Script Indicator
View Pine Script Indicator Code
//@version=6
// Guide: https://candlechasers.com/breakdown-deep-retest-confirmation/
// Original educational approximation; no orders, fills or performance claims.
indicator("CC Deep Retest Confirmation", overlay=true)
strength = input.int(2, "Pivot confirmation bars", minval=1)
life = input.int(30, "Maximum setup age", minval=2)
depth = input.float(0.25, "Minimum retest above level / prior ATR", minval=0)
bodySize = input.float(0.5, "Confirmation body / prior ATR", minval=0.1)
a = ta.atr(14)
p = ta.pivotlow(low, strength, strength)
var float support = na
var float frozen = na
var float tolerance = na
var float rejectionHigh = na
var int stage = 0
var int born = na
var int retest = na
bool signal = false
if barstate.isconfirmed
if not na(p)
support := p
bool occupied = stage != 0
if occupied
if bar_index - born > life or (stage == 2 and close > rejectionHigh)
stage := 0
else if stage == 1 and bar_index > born and high >= frozen + tolerance and close < frozen
stage := 2
rejectionHigh := high
retest := bar_index
else if stage == 2 and bar_index > retest and close < low[1] and open - close >= a[1] * bodySize
signal := true
stage := 0
if not occupied and stage == 0 and not na(support) and close < support and close[1] >= support
frozen := support
tolerance := a[1] * depth
born := bar_index
stage := 1
plot(support, "Confirmed support candidate", color=color.gray, style=plot.style_stepline)
plot(stage != 0 ? frozen : na, "Frozen broken support", color=color.orange, linewidth=2, style=plot.style_linebr)
plot(stage == 2 ? rejectionHigh : na, "Recorded rejection high", color=color.red, style=plot.style_linebr)
plotshape(signal, "Later bearish confirmation", shape.triangledown, location.abovebar, color.red, size=size.small)
alertcondition(signal, "Deep retest confirmation", "CC: breakdown, deep rejection and later bearish close. Context only.")
var table status = table.new(position.top_right, 1, 1, bgcolor=color.new(color.black, 10))
if barstate.islast
table.cell(status, 0, 0, stage == 0 ? "Waiting for support break" : stage == 1 ? "Broken level: awaiting deep rejection" : "Rejection recorded: awaiting later bearish close", text_color=color.white)
What This Indicator Shows
The gray line is the most recently confirmed support candidate. Orange freezes a broken reference, red marks a recorded rejection high, and a downward triangle marks later bearish confirmation. The status panel identifies the current stage. The thirty-bar expiry begins at the breakdown, and the rejection-high invalidation applies once a rejection is recorded. All stage changes finalize on completed candles.
What This Indicator Does Not Show
It is a short-side approximation, not a full recreation of the creator’s level selection, lower-high context, or multi-candle reading. It does not locate actual stops, forecast a target, size a trade, or simulate execution. A triangle consumes the current setup; a new one can begin only later. Loading more history may provide additional confirmed support candidates, but the code never backdates their availability.
Setup and Validation
Paste the complete script into TradingView’s Pine Editor, save it, and add it to a standard candlestick chart with enough history. Read the status panel and reference plots before expecting a marker. Check the specified chart interval and session inputs. For scripts with alert conditions, use Once Per Bar Close and recreate alerts after changing the code or its settings.
Validation status: Reviewed statically for source-versus-proxy distinctions, completed-bar timing, future-data use, persistent state, reference replacement, expiry, and visible output. This script has not been compiled or chart-tested in TradingView here. No performance or live-execution results are claimed. Use replay to inspect the described behavior; static review does not replace compilation and chart validation.
Research and Replay Lab
These are proposed learning experiments, not results established by the source. Change one main feature at a time, retain failures and missing opportunities, and reserve a later period for evaluation rather than repeatedly selecting settings from the same examples.
Is the extra retest useful?
Compare the first breakdown-close proposal with the later confirmed-retest proposal for the same initial support breaks. Keep the market, period, target rule, costs, and sizing convention fixed. Record unconfirmed setups, entry deterioration, and executable outcomes separately.
Does depth matter?
Compare rejection depths of zero, 0.25, and 0.5 ATR while holding the confirmation body and expiry fixed. Measure candidate count, time to confirmation, and adverse excursion. A larger excursion can change both the information and the stop distance.
How strict should confirmation be?
Compare bearish bodies of 0.25, 0.5, and one prior ATR using a fixed depth. Evaluate on a separate period. An isolated best setting does not establish a stable effect, especially if it leaves only a handful of events.
Check Your Understanding
Is a strong bullish retest candle a short trigger? Not by itself; the method waits for rejection and bearish confirmation.
Does a stop-run narrative identify actual hidden orders? No. The chart shows price behavior, not complete order intent.
Are the 0.25-ATR and 0.5-ATR thresholds source settings? No. They are original research definitions.
Why freeze the support after breakdown? So later pivots do not rewrite the active setup.
Does waiting always improve the ratio? No. A later, lower short entry can reduce available reward.
Final Takeaway
The source’s useful distinction is between seeing a break and seeing how a deeper return fails. Preserve that event sequence, define confirmation in advance, and compare its extra information with its missed setups and later entry prices.
Risk Disclosure
This material is educational and is not personalized financial, investment, or trading advice. Trading can cause substantial losses. Examples, source-reported results, and chart observations do not establish future performance. Hypothetical calculations depend on their assumptions and omit costs unless stated. Spread, fees, slippage, gaps, leverage, liquidity, financing, and contract terms can materially change outcomes. Indicators do not simulate broker execution or establish profitability. Options involve additional contract, expiry, exercise, and valuation risks. Evaluate any approach with appropriate data and realistic risk limits before considering live use.
This is an independent educational companion and is not affiliated with, sponsored by, endorsed by, or authorized by the source creator, channel, or TradingView.