eurusd sell setupFair Value Gap (FVG) - Highlighted in Orange:
This is an imbalance zone where price moved quickly without much trading.
It acts as a potential supply zone where institutions may have unfilled sell orders.
Your sell is anticipated after price returns to fill the FVG.
Market Structure Break (BMS):
Shown by the horizontal black arrow.
Price broke the previous low, confirming a bearish structure shift.
Indicates momentum shifting to the downside.
Entry & Stop Loss:
Entry: Just inside or after the FVG gets tapped.
Stop Loss: Above the FVG and the recent swing high (around 1.17680).
Risk-Reward: Favorable, around 1:3.34 (shown on chart).
Target (Take Profit):
Down near 1.17301.
This is likely based on a previous low, liquidity pool, or demand zone.
Price Action Confirmation:
Price impulsively dropped into the gray zone (likely previous demand or support).
You're expecting a pullback into the FVG before continuation downward.
✅ Why this Sell Setup Makes Sense (SMC Logic):
Break of Structure (BOS): Signals bearish intent.
FVG = Premium Zone (Sell Area): Fills imbalance and provides institutional entry.
Risk-Reward Ratio: Excellent, over 3:1.
Entry is Smart Money Based: You're not selling blindly but waiting for a retracement to a logical supply zone.
USDEUX trade ideas
121Hello awesome traders! 👑✨
Let’s kick off the week with a EUR/USD 2-Hour chart — spotting a high-probability 121 Bearish reversal to ride lower.
🧠 Setup Breakdown
Pattern Type: 121 Bearish Reversal
X → A: Downtrend from 1.18297 → 1.17464
A → B: Retracement up to 1.18098
B → C: Drop to 1.17165
C → D: Leg up into 1.17899 completing the 121
PRZ / PCZ: Confluence of 78.6% & 100% of BC at 1.17663–1.17799
✅ Why This Works
Clean 121 structure with two distinct retracements
Amplitude Symmetry: AB ≈ CD in price distance (~130 pips each)
Horizontal resistance from the prior B-swing lines up with PCZ
⚔️ Entry & Risk Management
Entry Zone: Short within 1.1766–1.1780 (PCZ)
Stop-Loss: Above swing high D at 1.17899, 5–10 pips higher (~1.1805)
Risk: ≤ 1–2 % of account per trade
🎯 Target Zones
Target Zone 1: 78.6%–100% retracement of C→D → 1.17009–1.16767
Target Zone 2: 127.2%–161.8% extension of C→D → 1.16459–1.16067
🔍 Confirmation & Invalid
Candlestick Rejection: Watch for bearish pin-bar or engulfing at PCZ
Structure Break: Close back below C→D trendline adds conviction
Invalidation: A decisive close above 1.1805 (above PCZ & D) negates the setup
💡 Keep It Simple:
Pattern → Spot 121 Bearish
PCZ → Wait for 78.6–100 % retracement of BC
Trigger → Bearish price action at D
Continuation → Ride the move into your Target Zones
🔔 Monitor ECB speak and risk-sentiment for broader catalysts.
Wishing everyone a profitable week ahead — stay disciplined, manage risk, and let structure lead, not emotions! 🚀
Long EURUSDThe uptrend on EURUSD remains intact, and buying opportunities are still the only viable option.
No major news is expected from the economic calendar this week.
Watch for the end of the current pullback and signs of a new bullish move.
The target is a breakout above the previous high, aiming for 1,1915.
Bigger correction down for EUHi traders,
Last week EU came into the Weekly FVG and started a correction down from there.
Next week we could see another move down to finish the bigger correction.
Let's see what the market does and react.
Trade idea: Wait for the finish of the correction up and a change in orderflow to bearish on a lower time frame to trade shorts.
If you want to learn more about trading with FVG's, liquidity sweeps and Wave analysis, then make sure to follow me.
This shared post is only my point of view on what could be the next move in this pair based on my technical analysis.
Don't be emotional, just trade your plan!
Eduwave
EUR/USD Weakens After Rising Wedge BreakdownAfter forming a rising wedge at the top of the upward channel, EUR/USD has broken to the downside. The price is now trading below 1.17813 and struggling to reclaim previous support zones.
The break of the wedge and failure to hold above 1.17813 may indicate more downside pressure.
EUR/USD - Pattern & SMA PerspectiveDear Friends in Trading,
How I see it,
Keynotes:
A] Under Pressure
B] Previous Swing Support Area
C] Contraction/Accumulation
Rangebound pattern:
1) Short term correction trend holding firm
2) Decisive breakout expansion required above or below range
3) Pair suggests that greenback bulls are in charge at this time
I sincerely hope my point of view offers a valued insight.
Thank you for taking the time study my)) analysis.
DXY was looking for More Liquidity to sweepIt appears that the DXY was searching for more liquidity before continuing its decline. There are good buying areas for the EURUSD, as the liquidity swept to the bottom, and the immediate rebound indicates the strength of this area and can be considered a buying zone.
This area coincides with the 61 Fibonacci support line, confirming the possibility of an upside move.
The GBPUSD was targeting the bottom to trigger a liquidity sweep on the weekly timeframe. This is also an SMT signal, but it is somewhat weak, but it confirms the complete vision of the analysis.
EURUSD - Parallel channel in play!The following chart offers a closer look at the current structure of the EUR/USD pair on the 4-hour timeframe. Price action has been respecting a well-defined bearish parallel channel, which has provided clear boundaries for both resistance and support. Based on the ongoing reaction to these levels, we outline both bullish and bearish scenarios that could unfold in the coming sessions.
Bearish Parallel Channel
Since June 30, EUR/USD has been consistently moving within a downward-sloping bearish parallel channel. Each attempt to break above the upper boundary of the channel has been rejected, while the lower boundary continues to act as dynamic support. This sustained rejection from the upper trendline confirms the strength of the bearish momentum currently at play. The pair remains structurally weak unless a clean breakout to the upside occurs, accompanied by strong bullish confirmation.
Bullish Scenario
A potential bullish reversal could materialize if EUR/USD manages to hold above the 4-hour Fair Value Gap (FVG) located between 1.1620 and 1.1600. This zone may provide the necessary support for the bulls to step in. If the price maintains strength within or just above this FVG and buyers begin to show dominance, a rebound toward the upper boundary of the channel could occur. A successful breakout above the channel could then trigger a stronger rally, possibly targeting the 1.1750–1.1800 region, marking a clear shift in short-term momentum.
Bearish Scenario
Conversely, if the pair fails to hold the 4-hour FVG between 1.1620 and 1.1600 and closes a strong bearish 4-hour candle below this zone, the market may be setting up for further downside. This would suggest a rejection of the FVG as resistance and open the path for a drop toward the lower end of the channel. Interestingly, this area also aligns with a previously established larger 4-hour FVG. A move into this deeper FVG could present a more favorable zone for a longer-term bullish reversal, as it offers a stronger liquidity pool and potential demand area.
Final Thoughts
The EUR/USD pair is at a critical juncture. Price is hovering near a key support zone within a bearish channel that has defined its movement for several weeks. Whether bulls can hold this support and break above the channel, or bears take control and push it lower toward the broader 4-hour FVG, will determine the next major directional move. Traders should closely monitor price action around the 1.1620–1.1600 level for clues on the likely breakout direction.
--------------------------
Disclosure: I am part of Trade Nation's Influencer program and receive a monthly fee for using their TradingView charts in my analysis.
Thanks for your support. If you enjoyed this analysis, make sure to follow me so you don't miss the next one. And if you found it helpful, feel free to drop a like and leave a comment, I’d love to hear your thoughts!
EURUSD buyThe eurusd looks set for upward move , its in a huge uptrend on the daily chart so this pullback down looks perfect for a return to the highs, now back to the 2 hr chart and we can see we have clearly bounced off a dynamic support zone not once but twice and formed a double bottom then for the first time since July 4th we have broken up throughout the 50 day moving average breaking the structure and returning back , I can now see a move upwards from here.
The Ineffectiveness of Day Trading: A Critical Review of EmpiricThe Allure of Quick Profits
Day trading has gained considerable popularity as an investment strategy among retail investors, particularly following technological advances in electronic trading platforms and commission-free brokerage services. This analysis examines the available empirical evidence from various markets and time periods to evaluate the economic viability of day trading as an investment strategy.
The most comprehensive study on the subject comes from Barber et al. (2011), who analyzed the behavior of over 360,000 day traders in Taiwan. Their results show that over 80 percent of day traders lose money, and less than 1 percent can achieve consistently profitable results. These findings align with similar studies from other markets and confirm the systematic unprofitability of day trading for the vast majority of participants.
Day trading represents a systematically unprofitable investment strategy for retail investors, rooted in cognitive biases (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), excessive transaction costs, and market microstructure inefficiencies (O'Hara, 1995). Long-term passive investment strategies demonstrate superior risk-adjusted returns with significantly lower resource requirements.
What the Research Shows
The research landscape on day trading is clear and consistent across various markets. A systematic review of the most important studies follows established standards of financial market research.
The inclusion criteria for relevant studies encompass empirical investigations with substantial sample sizes (more than 1,000 traders), minimum observation periods of 12 months, and quantitative performance measures. The available literature is based on millions of trading accounts from various developed markets.
The historical development of day trading shows clear parallels to technological developments in the financial sector. Before deregulation through Electronic Communication Networks by the SEC in 1997, it was impossible for retail investors to trade directly in the market. With the rise of online brokers like E*TRADE and Ameritrade, day trading became accessible to the mass public for the first time. This technical opening coincided with aggressive marketing that promoted free trades, low fees, and success stories of individual traders.
Empirical Findings
Evidence from various markets shows consistent patterns. Barber et al. (2011) document that 84.3 percent of 360,000 analyzed day traders in Taiwan suffered losses, with a median return of minus 8.7 percent. Similar studies from the United States confirm loss rates exceeding 90 percent of participants.
Jordan and Diltz (2003) conclude that even experienced day traders are hardly able to beat the market after costs in the long term. The long-term results are even more sobering: only a fraction of all day traders remain profitable over extended periods, while a significant portion abandons the activity within two years.
The transaction cost analysis is based on realistic market conditions. A calculation example illustrates the structural challenges: with an assumed daily trading volume of $50,000 and eight round trips per day, substantial costs arise from commissions (approximately 0.1% per trade), bid-ask spreads (averaging 0.02-0.05%), and market impact (about 0.01% for smaller volumes).
Annual Cost Calculation Example:
- 252 trading days × 8 trades = 2,016 trades/year
- Commission costs: 2,016 × $2.50 = $5,040
- Spread costs: $50,000 × 0.03% × 2,016 = $30,240
- Total costs: approximately $35,000 or 70% of daily trading volume
This cost structure means that day traders must achieve gross returns of well over 70 percent annually just to break even, while passive investors bear annual costs of only 0.1 to 0.3 percent (Bogle, 2007).
Behavioral Analysis and Cognitive Biases
Behavioral research explains why day trading remains attractive despite poor success prospects. Odean (1999) shows that overconfident investors trade excessively and thereby reduce their expected returns. The disposition effect documented by Shefrin and Statman (1985) leads traders to realize gains too early and hold losses too long.
Kahneman and Tversky's (1979) Prospect Theory explains systematic biases in decision-making under uncertainty. Loss aversion leads to losses weighing psychologically heavier than equivalent gains, resulting in irrational holding of losing positions.
The gambler's fallacy manifests in the erroneous assumption of many day traders that past losses make future gains more likely. Recency bias leads to overweighting recent events. These psychological factors reinforce each other and create a vicious cycle of irrational decisions.
Comparative Analysis: Day Trading versus Passive Strategies
A comparison with established investment strategies illustrates the systematic disadvantages of day trading. Malkiel (2011) documents long-term returns of diversified portfolios at 6-8 percent real, while Barber and Odean (2000) show that frequent trading systematically reduces returns.
Historical data shows that the S&P 500 Index achieved an average annual return of 10.2 percent with 15.8 percent volatility over 30 years (Sharpe ratio: 0.65). Day traders, in contrast, typically exhibit negative Sharpe ratios as losses dominate amid high volatility.
The time investment differs dramatically: day trading requires 40-50 hours of weekly attention, while passive investing demands less than one hour per week. Studies also show health burdens from the constant stress of active trading.
Market Microstructure and Professional Trading
Market structure systematically favors institutional players. High-frequency trading firms possess latency advantages in the microsecond range, while retail traders operate with delays exceeding 100 milliseconds. They utilize co-location services and process data volumes inaccessible to private investors.
Market-making operations profit from bid-ask spreads and exchange rebate programs. They operate under different regulatory frameworks and have access to dark pools and proprietary technology.
Day trading mathematically represents a zero-sum game that becomes negative after costs. Since the sum of all trading gains and losses equals zero, but transaction costs are positive, the expected return for all participants collectively is necessarily negative.
Alternative Investment Strategies
Academic literature comprehensively documents the superiority of passive strategies. Bogle (2007) demonstrates through long-term data that low-cost index funds consistently achieve better net returns than active strategies.
Passive Strategy Calculation Example:
An investment of €10,000 in a low-cost ETF (0.15% TER) with 7% annual returns yields approximately €37,000 after 20 years. To achieve this result, day traders would need to consistently earn over 15% gross returns after costs—a scenario that is empirically nearly impossible.
Factor-based investing offers additional improvements: Fama and French (1992) documented excess returns for value and size factors that are systematically and cost-effectively accessible.
Limitations of the Evidence
The research landscape has certain constraints. Survivorship bias in datasets may underestimate actual losses, as unsuccessful traders disappear from samples more quickly. Additionally, definitions of day trading vary between studies.
External validity is influenced by changing market structures. Algorithmic trading and new financial instruments may alter established patterns. Nevertheless, the fundamental problems of high costs and systematic behavioral biases persist.
Conclusion
The empirical evidence is clear: day trading represents a loss-making activity for the vast majority of participants. The combination of high transaction costs, systematic behavioral biases, and structural market disparities makes consistent profitability nearly impossible.
While isolated success stories exist, they represent statistical outliers rather than replicable strategies. The scientific evidence speaks unequivocally in favor of long-term, low-cost, and diversified investment strategies as superior alternatives to day trading.
Those who nonetheless engage in day trading should be aware that they are not only competing against the market, but against mathematical and psychological realities that practically preclude a high probability of success.
References
Barber, Brad M., Yi-Tsung Lee, Yu-Jane Liu, and Terrance Odean. "Do Individual Day Traders Make Money? Evidence from Taiwan." *Review of Financial Studies* 24, no. 8 (2011): 2892-2922.
Barber, Brad M., and Terrance Odean. "Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors." *Journal of Finance* 55, no. 2 (2000): 773-806.
Bogle, John C. *The Little Book of Common Sense Investing*. Hoboken: Wiley, 2007.
Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French. "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns." *Journal of Finance* 47, no. 2 (1992): 427-465.
Jordan, Douglas J., and J. David Diltz. "The Profitability of Day Traders." *Financial Analysts Journal* 59, no. 6 (2003): 85-94.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk." *Econometrica* 47, no. 2 (1979): 263-291.
Malkiel, Burton G. *A Random Walk Down Wall Street*. 10th ed. New York: Norton, 2011.
Odean, Terrance. "Do Investors Trade Too Much?" *American Economic Review* 89, no. 5 (1999): 1279-1298.
O'Hara, Maureen. *Market Microstructure Theory*. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1995.
Shefrin, Hersh, and Meir Statman. "The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence." *Journal of Finance* 40, no. 3 (1985): 777-790.
EURUSD potential being range recently story background:
1. a strong bullish momentum appear 23Jun - 1Jul
2. potential range of price level between 1.17176 and 1.15625
position enter criteria
1. if the price reach the key support lv 1.15451 and rebound with strong bullish momentum >>> the first entry point would be around 1.15693
2. if the price breakout the key resistance lv of 1.17183, i will wait for the price retest to around 1.16350 to long again
$EU (EURUSD) 4HEURUSD is forming a potential inverse head-and-shoulders just above a 4H fair value gap (FVG).
We expect one more dip toward the 1.1580–1.1595 zone to complete the right shoulder and tap demand.
From there, a breakout above the descending trendline can target 1.1740 next.
The key here is watching the reaction after the FVG test — if buyers step in strong, we ride it up.
EURUSD – WEEKLY FORECAST Q3 | W30 | Y25📊 EURUSD – WEEKLY FORECAST
Q3 | W30 | Y25
Weekly Forecast 🔍📅
Here’s a short diagnosis of the current chart setup 🧠📈
Higher time frame order blocks have been identified — these are our patient points of interest 🎯🧭.
It’s crucial to wait for a confirmed break of structure 🧱✅ before forming a directional bias.
This keeps us disciplined and aligned with what price action is truly telling us.
📈 Risk Management Protocols
🔑 Core principles:
Max 1% risk per trade
Only execute at pre-identified levels
Use alerts, not emotion
Stick to your RR plan — minimum 1:2
🧠 You’re not paid for how many trades you take, you’re paid for how well you manage risk.
🧠 Weekly FRGNT Insight
"Trade what the market gives, not what your ego wants."
Stay mechanical. Stay focused. Let the probabilities work.
FRGNT FOREX ANALYSIS 📊