Setup Grading
Which setups deserve capital?
Not all valid setups deserve capital.
A setup can be technically valid and still be a poor allocation of risk.
This framework does not predict outcomes. It ranks opportunities.
It exists to create scarcity and force selectivity.
Is this a setup I trade?
Does it satisfy its non-negotiable rules?
How good is this instance?
Score 5 dimensions.
Each layer answers a different question, and the order matters.
Eligibility asks whether the pattern is one I trade at all. Integrity asks whether this instance satisfies that pattern's non-negotiable rules. Only what survives both gets scored.
Grading a setup that fails either layer is wasted work.
Most traders evaluate setups using feelings.
They see a chart. They like the story. They like the sector. They imagine the upside.
Then they enter.
Subjective conviction is not a repeatable process.
Every setup is evaluated against the same criteria, in the same order, so the decision to allocate capital is made the same way every time.
The framework sits between observation and action.
Layer 1 — Eligibility
Question: Is this a setup I trade?
This layer is binary and it is fast.
I maintain a defined set of setups. A chart either matches one of them or it does not. There is no partial match, no “close enough,” no setup I invent on the spot because the chart looks interesting.
Setup Grading is pattern-agnostic from here on. Whether the opportunity is an OTB Breakout, a VCP, a Pole & Flag, or another setup from the playbook, every eligible candidate moves through the same two layers that follow.
If the chart does not match a setup I trade, it is discarded. No scoring. No analysis. No debate.
Layer 2 — Integrity
Question: Does this setup satisfy its own non-negotiable rules?
Every setup has conditions that define it. Without them, the pattern is not a weaker version of itself — it is a different chart.
A Pole & Flag without a pole is not a weak Pole & Flag. There is no setup.
These are gates, not scores. Each one is pass or fail, with nothing in between.
The pattern's defining conditions are present
Minimum strength versus the index is present
Minimum participation at the trigger
Stop distance is within acceptable limits
The environment supports this setup type
The specific thresholds vary by setup — what counts as sufficient volume for a breakout is not what counts for a base. The categories stay constant; the numbers belong to each setup's own rules.
Fail any gate and the candidate does not proceed. It is not graded, and it does not appear in the ranking.
Layer 3 — Quality Score
Question: Among all valid setups, which deserve capital first?
Everything reaching this layer is already a real setup that satisfies its own rules. The question is no longer whether it works. The question is how strong it is relative to everything else available right now.
A good setup is rarely one thing. It is usually several favourable conditions appearing at the same time.
Note the shift in wording between Layer 2 and Layer 3. Layer 2 asks whether volume is present. Layer 3 asks how exceptional it is. Layer 2 asks whether relative strength is positive. Layer 3 asks how strong it is.
Defining conditions are gates. Improving conditions are scores. They are never mixed.
Trend Quality
Question: Is the stock moving in the direction I want?
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 2 | Above 50 DMA and 200 DMA. Higher highs, higher lows. Rising moving averages. Stage 2 structure visible. Trend direction is immediately obvious. |
| 1 | Above 200 DMA. Mixed structure, some higher lows, moving averages flattening. Trend exists but lacks momentum. |
| 0 | Below 200 DMA, or choppy range with no clear direction. No trend advantage. |
Structure Quality
Question: Is the chart organised?
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 2 | Tight base. Contractions shrinking properly. Clear pivot, clear resistance. Higher lows inside the base. The chart almost explains itself. |
| 1 | Valid but imperfect. Base slightly loose, one deep contraction, wider swings, pivot exists but is not ideal. |
| 0 | Wide volatility, deep retracements, no clean pivot. Requires too much explanation. |
Relative Strength Quality
Question: How strong is the outperformance?
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 2 | Clear outperformance versus the index, sector is a top-two leader, RS line near highs. |
| 1 | Outperforming the index, sector neutral. |
| 0 | Outperforming, but only marginally. Cleared the gate without conviction. |
Volume Quality
Question: How exceptional is the participation?
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 2 | Volume far above the minimum — decisive expansion at the trigger. |
| 1 | Volume comfortably above the minimum. |
| 0 | Volume at the minimum. Cleared the gate, nothing more. |
Opportunity Quality
Question: How efficient is the risk-reward?
| Score | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| 2 | Tight stop, clear multiple-R opportunity, entry not extended. |
| 1 | Moderate stop, acceptable R multiple. |
| 0 | Stop near the acceptable limit. Valid, but capital works harder here for less. |
Relative strength negative.
Not a setup.
Does not enter the ranking.
Nothing to reconsider.
Every gate passed.
Total score: 4.
A valid setup that lost to better opportunities today.
May grade higher next week.
A setup that violates a non-negotiable rule is not a lower-grade setup. It is not a setup.
A setup that scores poorly is still a setup. It simply did not earn capital today.
What The Grades Mean
Rare. Everything aligns. These receive attention first and the largest allocation the environment permits.
Good, not perfect. One or two dimensions sit below their best. Still highly tradable.
Technically sound, not compelling. Considered only when stronger opportunities are scarce.
A valid setup that ranked below the alternatives. It stays on the watchlist. It does not receive capital.
Setup grading is not prediction.
An A-grade setup can fail. A C-grade setup can run.
The framework is not trying to forecast outcomes. It is trying to improve decision quality.
Judge the process. Not the result.
What This Framework Is Not
It Is Not A Prediction Engine. The grade describes the quality of the opportunity as it exists now. It says nothing about what happens next.
It Is Not A Single Checklist. Defining conditions and improving conditions are different things. Mixing them into one score lets a strong total paper over a fatal weakness. The layers exist to keep them apart.
It Is Not A Position Size. The grade ranks opportunities. It does not calculate how much capital they receive. That is the next framework.
The Handoff
“Which setups deserve capital?”
“How much?”
Version 0.1 — Scoring anchors and gate thresholds are provisional and will be refined as the framework evolves.
Frameworks are revised as the market teaches us something. Subscribers get the revision and the reason.
Market observations and one monthly letter.How the market is behaving, what it means for process, and where the reading breaks down. No tips. No noise.
We respect your attention. Unsubscribe anytime.