NQ / Nasdaq-only weekly grading dashboard • May 26–May 29, 2026 ET
📊 Weekly NQ Trade Desk Self-Grade
Clear text summary: Weekly grade B- / 78. The desk remained directionally constructive in a strong upside week and target-hit rates were respectable, but calls were consistently made from stretched conditions and average adverse excursion exceeded favorable excursion. Process grade is good, not great.
Trading analysis only — not financial advice.
Weekly Grade: B- (78/100)
- Target process worked: combined target-hit rate was 66.2%, with no support-reference invalidations logged in graded windows.
- Timing was mixed: directional accuracy was only 52.5%; many calls experienced pullback before any useful upside.
- Risk quality needs work: average MAE (85.0 pts) exceeded average MFE (59.6 pts), indicating entry timing or chase risk.
- Data limits remain: R multiple, explicit stop/target distance, and formal setup taxonomy were not available.
Directional Accuracy and Excursion by Horizon
| Horizon | Graded | Target hits | Stop / invalidation hits | Directional accuracy | Avg MFE pts | Avg MAE pts | Avg MFE ATR | Avg MAE ATR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30m | 35 | 21/35 (60.0%) | 0/35 (0.0%) | 20/35 (57.1%) | 35.6 | 55.3 | 0.073 | 0.114 |
| 60m | 35 | 23/35 (65.7%) | 0/35 (0.0%) | 19/35 (54.3%) | 46.5 | 74.1 | 0.095 | 0.152 |
| 120m | 35 | 23/35 (65.7%) | 0/35 (0.0%) | 17/35 (48.6%) | 69.7 | 96.4 | 0.143 | 0.199 |
| 240m | 34 | 25/34 (73.5%) | 0/34 (0.0%) | 17/34 (50.0%) | 87.3 | 114.9 | 0.179 | 0.237 |
Pending / incomplete observations: 30m 4, 60m 4, 120m 4, 240m 5.
What Worked
- Long-bias framework matched the weekly upside regime often enough to produce solid target-reference hits.
- Higher horizon target-hit rate improved into 240m (73.5%), suggesting larger context was better than short-term timing.
- Positioning was checked internally; raw options/GEX details remain intentionally hidden.
What Failed
- Every logged setup was marked as stretched, so the system did not distinguish trend continuation from chase/no-trade conditions.
- Average adverse excursion exceeded favorable excursion, weakening tradability even when reference targets were later touched.
- Best/worst setup type cannot be ranked: only one effective setup class was present in the journal.
Adjustments for Next Week
- Add formal setup labels: breakout, pullback-to-VWAP, range-fade, trend-continuation, and no-trade.
- Require explicit entry, stop, target, and risk unit so R multiple can be graded.
- When NQ is stretched, downgrade from “trade” to “wait for pullback” unless MAE control or momentum confirmation is present.
- Separate directional forecast quality from trade execution quality in the journal.
Setup-Type and No-Trade Quality
Best setup type: Stretched upside continuation was the only effective category available; it produced target hits but poor excursion balance.
Worst setup type: Not measurable from current labels. No alternative setup class was logged.
No-trade-condition quality: Needs improvement. Because all graded NQ reports were flagged as stretched, the desk should have produced more explicit “stand aside / wait for pullback” calls. This is the main process gap.
Missing or Incomplete Data
- Average R multiple is missing because explicit stop size and realized/assumed risk units were not logged.
- Best/worst setup rankings are incomplete because the journal lacks multiple setup-type labels.
- Some late-week horizons are still pending, especially 240m, so final counts may change after full look-forward windows close.
- No separate no-trade call outcomes were logged; no-trade quality is inferred from stretched-condition flags.