Trading Plan Example: A Worked Template

A trading plan example should show decisions that can be made before an order and checked after it—not supply a strategy to copy. The worked example below covers scope, setup eligibility, invalidation, planned risk, trade management, re-entry, session boundaries, and review for one hypothetical discretionary intraday trader.

The market, setup, and numbers are illustrative. They have no tested expectancy and are not recommendations. Replace them with conditions supported by your own research, account constraints, and risk tolerance. If you first need the definition and components, start with what a trading plan is; this article focuses on turning those components into one usable document.

A complete hypothetical trading plan example

Trader and method: This hypothetical trader is a discretionary intraday trader using a simulated instrument called SIM-INDEX. It is not a real contract, and its prices and point value exist only to make the example traceable. The hypothetical method considers the first pullback after an opening-range break. This example does not establish that the setup has an edge. Its purpose is to show how a plan can translate a method into observable decisions.

Plan field	Example rule
Market and session	Observe only the fictional SIM-INDEX. New entries are eligible from 09:45 to 11:30 in the trader’s simulated local market time.
Setup	Mark the 09:30–09:45 range. Consider one long setup only after a close above that range, followed by a pullback that stays above the range midpoint. The short case is outside this example.
Entry trigger	Enter at the close of the first up-close bar after the pullback touches the broken range high. No entry if that close is more than 3 fictional points above the range high.
Invalidation	Place the thesis-invalidation reference 1 fictional point below the pullback low. If the planned entry is 100 and the pullback low is 96, invalidation is 95. The level must exist before size is calculated.
Planned risk	SIM-INDEX has a fictional value of $5 per point per unit. The trader’s illustrative limit is $100 per attempt. With a 100 entry and 95 invalidation, risk is 5 points × $5 = $25 per unit; $100 ÷ $25 permits 4 units. If the quotient is not a whole unit, round down. These invented values are not suitable-risk guidance.
Management	Exit at invalidation or at a target twice the initial entry-to-invalidation distance, whichever occurs first. For the 100 entry and 95 invalidation, that illustrative target is 110. Move nothing in between. The formula is not evidence of positive expectancy or a recommended reward-to-risk ratio.
Re-entry	One further attempt is eligible only after price first closes back inside the opening range, then closes above it again and forms a new qualifying first pullback. An immediate entry merely because the prior trade stopped out is ineligible.
After-loss response	After a full planned loss, complete a brief check of setup, intended risk, and re-entry status before considering another order.
Session boundary	Initiate no new position after 11:30. Manage an existing eligible position according to its written management rule.
Logging	Record setup, trigger time, planned and actual risk, rule status, relevant prior event, and result.
Review and revision	Classify adherence after the session. Consider plan changes only during the scheduled weekly review, not during an open trade or directly after one outcome.

This is a coherent worked plan, but it is not automatically a good trading method. The entry premise still needs independent testing. The risk method still belongs to the trader. The value of the example is narrower: each important action has a pre-decision standard and a later review question.

Why each part exists

Scope prevents a plan from expanding after the fact

“Trade good opportunities” leaves the market, time, and setup open to reinterpretation. The trader’s scope states where and when the plan applies. A compelling move in another instrument might still be a real opportunity, but it is outside this plan.

Scope should be specific without pretending that every market state can be anticipated. A trader with multiple tested methods can maintain separate eligibility conditions for each one. The key is to identify the applicable method before entry rather than selecting an explanation once the result is known. Scope can also depend on the trader’s own condition, not only the market’s: sleep and trading performance covers a repeatable pre-session check for deciding whether a poor-sleep day is in scope for a normal session at all.

Eligibility separates a setup from the urge to participate

The setup row names a pattern, while the entry-trigger row identifies the event that makes action eligible. Both are needed. A broad setup label can otherwise be used to justify entries at different prices, times, or stages of a move.

The “too extended” condition also defines a correct decision not to trade. It does not predict that price will reverse. It says the available entry no longer fits the planned expression of the idea.

Invalidation comes before position size

In the example, the trader identifies where the premise stops meeting the method before calculating size. This preserves the order of decisions:

eligible setup → entry and invalidation → planned risk → position size

Reversing that order—choosing a desired size and then placing an invalidation around it—can quietly make exposure rather than the trade premise the controlling variable. The model and values shown here exist only to complete the fictional arithmetic; no universal percentage or dollar amount is appropriate for every trader.

Management rules define what may change

A plan does not require robotic execution. It can permit discretion, but the conditions for using that discretion should be stated. This illustrative plan permits no intermediate adjustment. A different plan could allow one only if its conditions were stated in advance. Either choice creates a reviewable distinction between a planned action and a new rule introduced because the open profit or loss became uncomfortable.

Re-entry and after-loss rules cover the second decision

Many plans describe the first entry and say little about what happens after it fails. This example treats a second attempt as a new decision: the full setup must form again, and the after-loss check must be completed.

That trigger-response structure resembles an implementation intention—an if–then plan connecting a foreseeable situation with a chosen action. Gollwitzer and Sheeran’s meta-analysis found that implementation intentions supported goal attainment across the studied domains.¹ The research is not about trading and does not show that this example improves performance. It supports the limited design choice of specifying a response before the triggering situation arrives.

Review rules stop one outcome from rewriting the process

The trader records both adherence and result, then postpones revisions until a scheduled review. That does not mean a demonstrably dangerous or erroneous rule must stay in force. It means a single win or loss does not silently become the evidence for changing a method during the session.

Risk is inherent in any trading strategy, and there is no foolproof method with guaranteed results, as the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission cautions.² A trading plan organizes decisions; it does not validate a strategy or remove uncertainty.

Walk the example through three session scenarios

Scenario 1: a qualified trade loses

At 10:05, SIM-INDEX closes above the opening range, pulls back to its broken high without crossing the range midpoint, and prints an up-close bar at 100. The pullback low was 96, so the trader records invalidation at 95. The 5-point distance at the fictional $5 point value equals $25 per unit; the illustrative $100 limit permits 4 units. The trader enters 4 units and later exits at 95, an illustrative $100 loss before any simulated fees or execution differences.

The outcome is a loss. The execution classification is still rule-aligned. The review should preserve both facts rather than using the loss alone to declare the plan broken.

Scenario 2: the market moves without the planned entry

At 09:50, SIM-INDEX closes above the opening range but never pulls back to the broken range high. It continues strongly. Because the written trigger never occurs, the trader does not enter.

The result is a rule-aligned no-trade, not a missed execution. The plan was not designed to capture every move. If repeated evidence later supports another setup, that is a research and scheduled plan-revision question—not permission to rename a late entry in real time.

Scenario 3: a stopped trade is followed by an immediate signal

The trader takes the qualified four-unit loss described above at 10:20. Two minutes later, SIM-INDEX turns upward, but it has not first closed back inside the opening range, closed above it again, and formed a new qualifying pullback. The urge to re-enter is understandable; the entry is still ineligible under this plan.

The trader completes the after-loss check and waits. If that explicit reset and every entry condition later occur before 11:30, the plan permits one further attempt. If the trader enters immediately without them, that trade is classified as rule-deviated whether it wins or loses.

These scenarios show why an example needs more than entry criteria. A usable plan also defines what happens when a valid trade loses, when a market moves without the trader, and when the next decision occurs under pressure.

Blank trading-plan template

Copy the structure, not the hypothetical rules.

TRADING PLAN

Market or instrument:
Eligible session and time zone:
Tested setup or method:

ENTRY
Observable setup conditions:
Required trigger or confirmation:
Conditions that make an entry too late or ineligible:
Thesis invalidation:

RISK AND SIZE
Planned-risk method:
Position-sizing method:
Conditions that permit lower or different risk:
Maximum self-defined exposure or loss boundary:

MANAGEMENT
Exit or invalidation process:
Permitted adjustments and their evidence:

SESSION BEHAVIOR
Re-entry conditions and attempt boundary:
Response after a defined loss condition:
New-entry cutoff:
Other known trigger → chosen response:

RECORD
Fields captured at the decision:
Rule-aligned / rule-deviated classification:
Financial result:

REVIEW
Review cadence:
Evidence required before changing a rule:

For each completed line, ask two questions:

Could I determine this before placing the order?
Could I later tell whether I followed it?

If the answer to either is no, rewrite the field in observable terms. “Only take quality setups,” “manage risk well,” and “stay disciplined” may express the right intention, but they do not yet provide a decision standard.

Audit your completed plan

Before using the plan as a review baseline, check it for four common gaps.

The strategy gap

Does the document name an actual tested method, or does it assume that writing a plan creates an edge? Planning cannot replace research into the method itself.

The observability gap

Can another careful reader distinguish an eligible trade from an ineligible one using the written criteria? Not every discretionary judgment must be binary, but the plan should identify what evidence the judgment uses.

The pressure gap

Does the plan cover the states in which your rules most often become negotiable—such as a prior loss, a missed move, a re-entry, changed size, or the end of the planned session? Use your own records to choose relevant triggers rather than copying this example.

The review gap

Does the record preserve planned versus actual risk, adherence versus outcome, and the context of a deviation? Aggregate P&L cannot answer all three questions. The trading risk management framework covers exposure and loss controls, while trading discipline focuses on carrying predefined rules through pressure.

Where Costante fits

Costante supports the behavioral layer around a trader’s existing method: session planning, self-defined behavioral guardrails, pre-trade and in-session checks, low-friction logging, and structured review. That workflow can make a plan like this easier to compare with observed decisions over time.

Costante does not generate the strategy, test whether it has an edge, determine suitable risk, connect to a broker, execute or block orders, or guarantee discipline, profitability, or trading outcomes. The trader remains responsible for adapting the plan, validating the method, and deciding whether to trade.

Sources

Costante provides educational workflow tools, not financial advice. Trading involves risk.