100tradesproject

What if your first two trades fail for the same reason?
Would you quit the strategy—or study the failure?
I chose to study it.
In my 100 Trades Project, Cases #001 and #002 were both Breakdown Shorts.
Both looked bearish.
Both failed.
And both ended with the same result:
📈 Unexpected Pump → SL Hit
Case #001 $MARSCOIN — 55/100
My first lesson was simple:
A breakdown does NOT guarantee continuation.
I had a bearish thesis, but I wasn't paying enough attention to liquidity and possible reversal scenarios.
Case #002 $ZEC — 68/100
The same problem happened again.
This time, instead of simply accepting the loss, I started asking:
Where is the liquidity?
Who is trapped?
Could this breakdown be a liquidity grab?
What would invalidate my thesis?
That changed the way I looked at breakdown setups.
---
Case #003 $BR — 88/100 🔥
Then came Case #003.
Entry: 0.26
SL: 0.30
TP: 0.20
This time, the breakdown was followed by a retest and rejection.
Price moved in my expected direction.
I used a conservative 50% / 50% management plan:
✅ 50% position closed for realized profit
✅ Remaining 50% protected at Break Even
✅ Runner continued
✅ Final TP 0.20 Hit
Full TP achieved.
But the biggest win wasn't the profit.
It was the improvement in my process.
---
The Progress
Case #001 → 55/100
Breakdown failure
⬇️
Case #002 → 68/100
Liquidity & invalidation awareness
⬇️
Case #003 → 88/100
Better confirmation + disciplined management + Full TP
3 Trades. 3 Lessons.
#001 taught me humility.
#002 taught me to question my assumptions.
#003 taught me the value of disciplined execution.
My goal isn't to win all 100 trades.
My goal is to become a better trader by Trade #100 than I was at Trade #1.
3 / 100 completed.
Winrate is 33.33%
97 trades to go. 🚀
#100TradesProject #tradingjourney #priceaction #RiskManagement

BRU/USDT — Counter-Trend Short in a Bull Market
For Case #003 of my 100-Trades Project, I backtested a Breakdown Short setup on BRU.
This trade is especially interesting because I was looking for a short opportunity while the broader market was still bullish.
📖 The Candle Story
BRU started with a strong pump:
0.20 → 0.349
After the pump, price entered a consolidation zone between approximately 0.32 and 0.30.
Then the important move happened:
🔻 Price broke down through 0.28
Instead of entering immediately on the breakdown, I waited for confirmation.
Price retested the 0.30 area, but the retest failed.
After that rejection, price dropped toward 0.26.
Then price tested the 0.28 breakdown area again.
This time, price failed to reclaim 0.28 and continued to hold around 0.26.
That created my short setup.
🎯 Trade Plan
Short Entry: 0.26
Stop Loss: 0.30
Take Profit: 0.20
Risk: 0.04
Potential Reward: 0.06
➡️ Risk/Reward = 1 : 1.5
🧠 Why I Took the Short
My thesis was not simply:
“Price broke down, so I short.”
The setup was based on a sequence:
Pump → Consolidation → Breakdown → Retest → Retest Failure → Lower Low → Failed Reclaim → Short
The most important confirmation for me was the failure to reclaim the 0.28 breakdown level after price had already rejected from 0.30.
⚠️ The Biggest Risk
This is a counter-trend short.
The price had previously pumped from 0.20 to 0.349, meaning bullish pressure could still be present.
Therefore, I cannot automatically consider the breakdown a complete trend reversal.
The short thesis is better described as:
«A bearish correction setup inside a bullish market, rather than a confirmed full trend reversal.»
If price reclaims 0.30, my bearish thesis is invalidated.
📚 What I Learned From Case #003
1. Breakdown alone is not enough.
A breakdown becomes stronger when followed by a failed retest.
2. Retest failure gives better confirmation.
Waiting for the market to reject the broken level can reduce the risk of entering directly into a fake breakdown.
3. Failed reclaim is important.
The inability to reclaim 0.28 after the breakdown strengthened my short thesis.
4. Counter-trend trades require extra caution.
Even when the LTF structure looks bearish, the broader bullish trend can still produce a strong recovery pump.
5. A logical SL is more important than a random SL.
I placed the invalidation at 0.30 because reclaiming that area would weaken the entire breakdown thesis.
⭐ Backtest Score
Case #003 Setup Quality: 8/10
Breakdown Confirmation: 9/10
Retest & Rejection: 9/10
Entry Quality: 7/10
SL Placement: 9/10
RR: 7/10
Counter-Trend Risk: 6/10
🔥 Final Thought
Case #003 is not about whether this short wins or loses.
The real purpose of my 100-Trades Project is to collect enough trades to discover whether this specific Breakdown model has a real statistical edge.
I am testing one setup, documenting the story, following predefined Entry/SL/TP rules, and recording the lesson from every result.
Case #003 — BRU Breakdown Short
Entry: 0.26
SL: 0.30
TP: 0.20
RR: 1:1.5
Let's see what the market teaches me next. 📈📉
#100TradesProject
#TradingJournal #Backtesting #Breakdown #cryptotrading
$BTC
$ZEC
$BR

I’m currently running a 100-Trades Project to test my Trend Breakdown setup using:
• Market Structure
• Range Breakdown
• Liquidity
• Breakdown Confirmation
• Retest & Rejection
My first two cases gave me an important lesson.
Both short trades eventually failed because price pumped against my position and hit my predefined Stop Loss.
🔴 Case 001 — Profit First, Then Pump
Pump → Stop Loss
In Case 001, I identified a bearish setup and entered a short position expecting downside continuation.
However, the market did not continue downward as expected.
Instead, buying pressure appeared and price expanded upward until it reached my invalidation level.
Result: Stop Loss ❌
The important point is that the bearish setup was not enough to guarantee continuation.
🔴 Case 002 — Profit First, Then Pump
Case 002 was even more interesting.
My short entry was around 1017.
After entry, price dropped toward approximately 997, giving the position significant unrealized profit.
At that moment, the bearish thesis appeared to be working.
But the market then reversed aggressively.
Price recovered, broke through my invalidation level around 1060, and eventually pumped toward approximately 1085.
Result: Stop Loss ❌
This case taught me an important lesson:
A trade being profitable temporarily does not mean the setup is valid.
Price can move in our expected direction first and still completely invalidate the trade later.
🧠 What I Learned From Case 001 & Case 002
After reviewing both trades, I realized that my setup was focusing too much on the bearish side of the market.
Before entering a short, I should not only ask:
“Where can price break down?”
I also need to ask:
“Where are the buyers and opposite-side liquidity that could fuel a reversal?”
That changes the way I look at a breakdown.
A breakdown itself is not enough.
I need to see whether the market can prove that the breakdown is genuine.
🔄 My Updated Breakdown Process
My current process is now:
HTF Structure
↓
Range Identification
↓
Liquidity Mapping
↓
Breakdown
↓
Candle Close
↓
Retest
↓
Rejection
↓
Entry
And before entering a short, I will additionally check:
🔹 Opposite-side liquidity
🔹 Potential demand zone
🔹 Possible liquidity sweep
🔹 Strength of the breakdown
🔹 Whether the retest actually rejects
🔹 Whether buyers are still capable of pushing price back into the range
🎯 The Biggest Lesson
These two losses changed one important part of my trading mindset.
I don't need to predict the breakdown.
I need to wait for the market to prove the breakdown.
Case 001:
Pump → SL
Case 002:
Pump → SL
These are not simply two losing trades.
They are data points from my 100-Trades Project.
My next objective is to test whether adding:
Stronger Confirmation + Opposite-Liquidity Filter
can reduce this type of failure in my next backtest cases.
I’m not trying to create a strategy that never loses.
I’m trying to discover why it loses, when it loses, and whether I can reduce those specific failure conditions.
📈 100 Trades. One Setup. Continuous Improvement.
#100TradesProject #cryptotrading #priceaction #TradingLessons
$MARSCOIN
$ZEC