How to Trade · Phase 2 · Module T6
The tools are taught. This module shows you how to combine them into a written plan before any trade — a document that pre-commits to risk responses so the decision is already made when price moves against you.
What this module covers
The planning habit
A trading plan is a written document completed before you enter a trade. It records the outputs of the tools already taught — the risk percentage from Risk First, the structural stop from Stop Design, the regime observation from Reading the Regime — and it commits to specific responses if certain conditions occur. The plan is not analysis. The analysis already happened; the plan documents what you concluded from it and what you will do when price moves.
The value of writing it down is not that you might forget the numbers. The value is that the moment price moves against you, the decision about what to do has already been made — on paper, before any money was at risk, when the correct response was obvious. In that moment, reopening the question feels rational. The plan closes the question in advance.
This module shows one way to structure that document. It is not the only valid structure, and treating it as a rigid form misses the point. What matters is that the plan exists in writing, contains the outputs of your process, and commits to risk-based responses before emotion has a reason to override them. The template below is a starting point, not a prescription.
The plan structure
A complete plan documents what you know before entry and what you will do in response to specific conditions. The categories below organize the outputs from the modules already completed. Fill each one in before opening the position.
This is the fixed ceiling. The lot size will be derived from this number and the stop distance — never the other way around.
The regime tells you what kind of stop distance to expect when you apply the structural method. If the regime shifts after entry, your if-then plan (section 5) says what you do.
The stop location is determined by structure, not by desired position size. It goes where the trade idea is invalidated — nothing else.
If the position size had come out larger than the account can support at the risk ceiling, the plan would document that the trade is skipped — not that the stop is moved to fit.
If price hits my stop at $4,184.00
I exit immediately at market. I do not move the stop, add to the position, or reopen the question. The trade idea is wrong — that was the point of placing the stop there.
If the regime shifts to expansion (daily range >$50 for 3 sessions)
I reassess whether this position size still fits the new structural stop distance. If the next swing low forms significantly wider, I exit and re-plan at the correct size for the wider regime — I do not hold an undersized position hoping the regime narrows again.
If my account balance drops below the level where 1% equals the planned dollar risk
I recalculate position size at the new 1% figure before entering any further trades. I do not keep trading at the old dollar-risk level to "make it back."
If I feel the urge to check price tick-by-tick or move the stop during the trade
I close the trading platform and return after one hour. The urge to intervene is a symptom that the position is too large or the stop was placed incorrectly — both are plan violations, and neither is fixed by watching harder.
Every if-then above is a risk or process response — what to do when a condition changes, not a prediction about what price will do next. Write your own if-thens the same way.
The template structure is one way to organize this information. What matters is not the exact section headings but that the plan exists in writing before entry, documents the outputs from your risk and structural analysis, and commits to responses in advance. A plan written on a napkin that contains these elements is more valuable than a beautifully formatted document that was filled in after the trade closed.
The psychology layer
Risk First described why discipline breaks down when positions are oversized: when the dollar risk is too large to accept without distress, the predictable response is to override the plan — move the stop, cut winners early, hold losers past the exit level. Those are not character failures; they are rational attempts to reduce psychological pain caused by a position that should not have been opened at that size in the first place.
Correct sizing solves the root cause. A written plan with pre-committed if-thens solves the execution layer. When price hits the stop and the urge to move it arrives — which it will, even on a correctly sized position, because losing money feels bad regardless of the percentage — the decision has already been made. It is written in the plan, in section 5, before any emotional stake existed. The question is not "should I exit now?" The question is "do I follow the plan I wrote when the answer was obvious, or do I reopen the decision now that it feels hard?"
Framed that way, the correct response is easier to execute. You are not deciding whether the stop is right — you already decided that when you placed it structurally. You are deciding whether to follow your own process or abandon it because this particular loss feels worse than you expected. The plan makes that framing explicit: the work was done before entry; execution is just reading what you already wrote.
This is why the if-thens must be written as process and risk responses, never as market-direction predictions. "If price hits my stop, I exit" is executable — it describes what you do, not what you think will happen next. "If price breaks this level, it will run to X" is not a process response; it is a forecast, and forecasts are not decisions. A plan built on forecasts requires you to re-evaluate the forecast in real time when price moves, which puts you back in the emotional decision loop the plan was supposed to eliminate. A plan built on process responses requires only that you do what the document says — no evaluation, no prediction, just execution.
Making it repeatable
A single written plan for a single trade is useful. A habit of writing the plan before every trade is the point. The value is not in having documented one good decision; the value is in building a process where no position is opened without the risk, structure, and if-then responses already committed to in writing.
This becomes easier with repetition, not harder. The first plan takes fifteen minutes because the categories are unfamiliar. The tenth takes five minutes because the structure is the same every time: account balance, risk percentage, regime observation, structural stop, derived position size, if-then responses. The outputs change with each trade — the swing low is in a different place, the regime might have shifted, the dollar risk recalculates from the current balance — but the process of filling in the template is identical. That repetition is what makes it a habit rather than a one-time exercise.
The plan does not guarantee the trade will be profitable. It guarantees that the trade was planned — that the risk was defined in advance, the stop was placed structurally, the position was sized to the account, and the responses to adverse conditions were committed to before emotion had a stake in the outcome. Over many trades, that difference compounds. A trader who plans consistently and follows the plan will lose individual trades; a trader who reopens every decision in real time will eventually override themselves into a loss larger than their process would have allowed. The plan is not edge. The plan is how you stay disciplined enough to find out whether you have edge.
Carrying out of T6