Hi, I took a trade yesterday where the price swept the sell side liquidity and formed a fvg. I entered at the fvg but the price didn’t reach the buy side liquidity. There was a bearish order block in between and the price reversed from there and hit my sl. I want to know that when there is a order block between 2 liquidities, what do we target ? the opposite side liquidity or the first opposite side order block in between ?
It might be helpful to add a chart to your post that shows what you’re talking about. It would make it easier to understand what you’re referring to and you’ll have a better chance of getting a reasonable response.
There is no law that says that price must take out external liquidity after filling internal liquidity or that price must take out internal liquidity, as in filling all FVGs, after taking out external liquidity. I admit that I don’t quite understand the question but I’ll tell you how I see it based purely on market structure and the higher time frame.
I don’t see a reason to look for buys.
Price made a Higher Higher and then made a Lower Low which was followed by a Lower High. It’s bearish market structure.
On a higher time frame, price is overall bearish and retracing within the market range. You’re trading the retracement very close to the sell OTE. I assume OTE is what you’ll call it based on your use of ICT terminology. Also if you were buying, you were doing so at premium pricing on the H1 and within a bearish H1 FVG.
1 Like
Do you think it was a good idea to take partial profit before that bearish ob and set sl to breakeven?
I don’t know what bearish orderblock that you are referring to, but if you’re buying that close to a sell POI, why not take partial profit at the opposing POI and move the SL well into profit? If it reverses then you have your gains locked in, if it violates the zone, then you have even more gains.
You shouldn’t expect to get a runner when trading counter trend.
1 Like
This comment surprised me a bit, but I may have misunderstood it.
It’s always seemed to me that with trend-following trades I get a higher win rate but very few real runners, whereas with reversals I get a much lower win rate but with a higher proportion of runners among the winners, because true reversals (as opposed to minor retracements) can really run.
I’m not suggesting that either is inherently a “better”/“worse” approach than the other (though trend-following with a higher win rate suits my own risk management preferences).
For myself, therefore, as a proportion of each specified entry-type, I actually get a higher proportion of runners with counter-trend (attempted reversal) trades. This may to some extent be a statistical anomaly created by own risk management parameters, though.
A reversal of the trend would be a case for a runner.
A runner when trading counter trend within a retracement would require the pro-trend POIs that are encountered to fail and involves a retracement becoming a reversal. Even if these POIs ultimately fail, many can cause some reaction which makes for an uphill battle for a runner.
I wouldn’t expect a bullish runner like in the chart below. Sure, there are buy opportunities, but my expectations are going to be realistic that I’ll likely only get counter trend base hits not homeruns.
Sometimes we get lucky and have a runner in a counter trend trade, but sometimes we also get lucky and just happen to pick a market top or bottom as our entry. Nothing wrong with seizing those moments when we stumble on them. If reversals are a part of the plan, expectations should be realistic based on the fact that you’ll lose a lot of trades in order to catch the start of the reversal.