Actumetry

Compare your trading plan with what happened. Free prop challenge simulator + an interactive sample trade review. Try it without signing up ↓

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

@elijah_kinoti For the review, mark the first entry you consider overtrading and what prompted it. Compare the setup you intended to wait for with what was present then. That gives you a specific decision to revisit, beyond today's total.

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

@FunTimes_Jason For the review, write down what made you exit NBIS and VST before looking at the later highs. Then compare each exit with the rule you had at entry. The later rally alone can't tell you whether you broke that rule.

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

@bokarotraderfx For the next review, keep the exact VWAP reclaim rule beside the entry timestamp. That makes 'waited for confirmation' checkable. Actumetry puts plan beside recorded execution; explore that approach here if useful: https://t.co/wP56ZnpGq6

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

@EricoTrades Log when the ATH concern changed your 1R plan and what you saw at exit. Keep the AMD observation tagged as hindsight. Actumetry keeps the original plan beside execution for review. If useful, see the approach: https://t.co/wP56ZnqefE

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

Before comparing reviews, define what counts as one trade and use that definition consistently.

Actumetry connects your original plan with recorded execution for completed-trade review.

See the approach: https://t.co/wP56ZnqefE 3/3

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

Three fill rows can still belong to one entry decision. 🧩

Before counting trades in your weekly review, check what each export row represents.

An order, a fill and a completed trade can be different units. 1/3

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

Hypothetical example:
One order for 100 shares fills as 40, 30 and 30.

That's three fills for one planned entry. Treating each row as a separate trade would count that entry three times.

Keep the fill detail; make the counting rule explicit. 2/3

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

@christabellapng For the Friday question, log skipped setups when you see them and keep the ones that fail too. Compare like-for-like setups and sessions before changing the day filter. Otherwise the review can become a collection of missed winners.

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

@riskypaisa For the direction note, record how you defined the trend before each entry: timeframe, level and what would change your view. Then compare that record with the trade. A losing result can make the day's direction look more obvious than it was at entry.

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

@numanxbt Separate planned trailing from unplanned stop widening, and include winners in both groups. Actumetry puts your original plan beside recorded execution for that review. If you'd like to see the approach: https://t.co/wP56ZnqefE

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

Actumetry keeps missing evidence visible when reviewing completed trades.

For each unknown, note what record would resolve it. If the original plan was never recorded, leave that gap open and improve the record for future trades. 3/3

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

Missing evidence deserves its own label in a trade review. 🔎

If the record can't tell you whether you followed a rule, mark it unknown.

That keeps a recording gap from quietly becoming a judgment about your decision. 1/3

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

Hypothetical review of 10 trades:
6 show the entry rule was followed.
2 show it was broken.
2 lack the record needed to tell.

Keep all three groups. Calling the last 2 failures adds a conclusion the evidence can't support. 2/3

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

@TraderRajeshDev For the early exit, record what you saw and why you closed before reviewing the later high. Compare that with your original exit rule. Keeping that reason beside the entry checklist gives you a more useful review than measuring the trade against its maximum possible profit.

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

@FuturesHish Review the hesitation, missed scale-out and added size as three decisions. Keep the original rule and reason beside each. Actumetry puts your plan beside recorded execution. If useful, explore the review approach: https://t.co/wP56ZnqefE

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

@_KirbybriK For the execution review, record when your entry conditions were met, when you acted, and the reason for any gap. Actumetry keeps your original plan beside the recorded entry. If useful, you can see that review approach here: https://t.co/wP56ZnqefE

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

@De_CaptainChart For your post-loss review, isolate the first trade after each loss: planned size, actual size, setup rule and reason for re-entry. Include times you paused too. That can show where decisions changed, without using the next trade's result to justify them.

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

@BSgomez For rules 5 and 8, date playbook changes so reviews don't mix rule versions. Actumetry compares completed trades with relevant reviewed history. If you'd like to test it, you can apply for the free eight-week research alpha: https://t.co/PI10UaUguq

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

In your next review, check the order record before adding a label like 'hesitation.' If a timestamp or reason is missing, leave it unknown.

Actumetry keeps missing evidence visible in completed-trade reviews.

See the approach: https://t.co/wP56ZnqefE 3/3

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

A late fill doesn't prove you hesitated. ⏱️

Before labeling an entry mistake, check when you decided, when you sent the order, and when it filled.

Those can be three different moments. 1/3

[Actumetry @Actumetry]

Hypothetical trade:
Trigger: 09:30:00
Order sent: 09:30:02
Fill: 09:31:10

The fill came 70 seconds after the trigger; 68 seconds passed after the order was sent.

That gap alone doesn't tell you why execution took longer. 2/3