THE CONVEXGATE APPROACH
A morning recovery loses its structure. A short arrives before a reversal. Explore two liquidity traps and compare the rules for entering, holding, realizing profit, and stepping aside.
Explore the trade reviewsTWO LIQUIDITY TRAPS / A PROCESS TO COMPARE
A long can give back its open profit. A short can be early while the market keeps rising. Explore the evidence at the decision point—then compare the exit logic with your own.
1 · Assumed entry2 · Structural exit referenceBand · unfinished V-recovery · Dashed line: holding higher low
Process followed: act on the failed reclaim. Process missing: keep waiting for the original target after the hold thesis fails.
3. MAKE THE DECISION
Price breaks the recovery higher low and cannot reclaim it on the next attempt. The schematic exit reference is still above the assumed long entry, even though the full V-recovery never completed.
The example process calls for closing the remaining long at an executable price once that condition is met. With one contract, that means a full close. The actual fill could differ from the drawn reference.
Was the exit condition defined before the structural failure—or invented afterward?
WHAT YOU CAN TAKE INTO A PEER REVIEW
Separate the target, the reason to hold, and the invalidation. The long example asks when to realize open profit as structure fails. The short example asks whether the entry was ready at all. The useful work is making those conditions explicit before the next decision.
V-gap, in this ConvexGate scenario: the unfinished part of a potential V-shaped recovery from a morning selloff back toward the price before it. That price is the setup’s chosen fair-value reclaim reference. A return to it remains a hypothesis.
The scenario concepts were supplied by ConvexGate. Paths, levels, entries and exit references are illustrative, with no actual market data, position size, instrument, dollar return or timestamp assigned. A drawn exit above entry does not guarantee a profitable fill. Revealing the illustrative continuation does not validate a strategy or establish expectancy.
The short-side stop zone is inferred. If buy-stop instructions trigger, their execution can add buying against available offers, depending on order type and market conditions. Actual stop locations and participant intent would require additional evidence. A nearby invalidation needs a logical structural reference and sizing that fits its distance; an arbitrary close stop can be crossed by ordinary price movement.
For one futures contract, closing the remaining position means closing that contract in full. Scaling out requires multiple contracts. Stops, limits and protection ranges have different execution behavior; none guarantees the drawn price or a loss cap.
Mechanics: CME order types · CME closing a position · CME position sizing.
FOUR MARKETS / FOUR SEPARATE EXAMPLES
Choose a market and compare a written loss plan with a selected delayed exit. These dollar examples are separate from the structure diagrams above; their prices and outcomes are not the chart’s trade history.
Choose a preset and move the slider. The examples are ready to explore.
NQ futures. One trade at a time. Each direction below gets the entire $2,500 plan independently. They are alternatives, not simultaneous positions. Sizing: 1 contract. $2,500 ÷ $20 per point = 125 points to the planned exit.
SEPARATE UPWARD VIEW
1 NQ contract
375 points × $20 × 1 contract = $7,500 before costs.
SEPARATE DOWNWARD VIEW
1 NQ contract
375 points × $20 × 1 contract = $7,500 before costs.
WHERE THE PLAN BROKE
The planned protective exit was never submitted as a working order. The market crossed it, the trader waited for a recovery, and the position was finally closed farther away.
$7,500 loss · $92,500 equity remaining
Loss as a percentage of starting equity. This is a selected outcome, not a full intraday equity path.
The entry, target, size, and protective exit are explicit. Entry fills are assumed exact.
The loss exit stays in the notes. Price moves through it while the trader waits.
A future has no premium-based loss limit. A written budget alone does not cap the loss.
Read this as a trade review, not a risk recommendation. Every example starts with $100,000 of standalone equity. Planned losses and modeled outcomes are before fees and other costs. The budget is not a guaranteed maximum and is not a prop-program loss allowance.
These are fictional trades, not ConvexGate results. All entries are assumed filled exactly. Targets are not reached. In the failure settings, protective exits were not submitted as working orders; closing decisions were deferred. A submitted order would not guarantee the planned fill or loss cap.
Futures entry references use saved delayed December 2026 quotes: NQ 28,790.25 (Nov 1, 2026, 22:32:38 EST) and ES 7,647.50 (22:29:56 EST). The provider reports a 10-minute delay. These are dated reference levels, not live prices or observed trades. The later prices and outcomes are invented for the review.
QQQ and SPY use hypothetical strikes of $700 and $760. Each purchased option costs $3.50 per share, with a planned $1.00 premium exit. Budget ÷ $250 determines contract count. The $0 setting assumes unexercised expiry out of the money; higher settings assume a closing sale before expiry. Equal call/put premiums simplify the comparison.
No probability distribution, option-pricing path, full intraday equity path, or margin-feasibility analysis is supplied. Futures losses can exceed the displayed range. Purchased-option losses are limited to premium paid before costs; exercise-related positions are excluded.
CME multipliers · CME order types · OCC ETF options · NQ delayed reference · ES delayed reference.
A PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY
Load a ready-made example or add your own notes. Separate the original idea, the intended trade, and what happened. A decision to pass belongs in the review, too.
RESEARCH & COLLABORATION
Start with the work: the observation, the trigger, the exit condition, and how you would test it. Trading peers, researchers, and developers can compare methods through a concrete decision.
CONVEXGATE WORKING NOTE / SCHEMATIC EXAMPLES
The long concept starts with a morning selloff and a possible V-shaped reclaim. The short concept starts with a fade entered while rising structure still holds. The note records the hypothesis, the changing evidence, and the candidate decision rules for both.
The concepts came from ConvexGate. The plotted paths and exit references were built for discussion. This is a working process note, with no verified trade record or return assigned to it.
Use the same observation window and definitions. Compare the evidence for acceptance, rejection, a recovery holding level, or a reversal trigger. Potential stop locations remain hypotheses until supported by additional evidence.
Define the event before reviewing later prices. Challenge sample selection, costs, parameter choices and out-of-sample behavior. One selected continuation is an illustration; evaluating expectancy requires a separate test.
Compare how a condition becomes an order, what price protection does, and what happens if a fill differs. Review spread, depth and size alongside the thesis boundary.
Method reference: CME liquidity methodology.
The expandable calculator gives each market its own $100,000 account example and $2,500 planned loss before costs. No losses are added across markets or directions. Futures quantities stay at one contract; option counts follow the premium-loss calculation.
The calculator is separate from the schematic structure reviews. It illustrates price-loss arithmetic. A usable trade plan also needs a market-based reason for its entry and invalidation.
Use a process note or the editable review to frame the observation and the assumption you want to compare.
LET’S COMPARE APPROACHES
Have a market-structure question, execution assumption, or research idea to compare? Share what you observed, what you are testing, and where another perspective would be useful.
hello@convexgate.com