KISS Sprint Log — Week 4: Same Stock, Twice This Week
Four more trades, three more saves, a positive sprint R for the first time — and two open winners quietly running risk-free.
═══════════════════════════════════════════
70% THROUGH — AND FOR THE FIRST TIME, GREEN
═══════════════════════════════════════════
Fourteen trades logged. 100% process compliance. Sprint R sitting at
+0.1R — info only, but worth naming: after the -1R hit early on, this is
the first time the running total has crossed back into positive
territory. Nine LVTD saves on the board. Six trades left to complete the
sprint.
I want to be upfront about that +0.1R the moment I say it: it changes
nothing about how the next six trades get handled. Compliance is still
the only number that graduates this account to live capital. But it’s a
real milestone worth noting once, honestly, before going back to ignoring
it — because that’s exactly what the system asks you to do with any
number that isn’t the compliance percentage.
═══════════════════════════════════════════
THE SCORECARD
═══════════════════════════════════════════
Trades logged: 14 / 20 (70% through)
Compliant: 14 / 14 (100%)
Compliance threshold: 90% ✅ well above the line
Sprint R (info only): +0.1R (closed trades only; CAKE and ZION still
open, running risk-free past +2R)
LVTD saves (total): 9
Status: KEEP GOING — 6 trades to complete the sprint
═══════════════════════════════════════════
WEEK 4 — THE FOUR NEW TRADES
═══════════════════════════════════════════
→ HXL (#11, 05-Jul): filled at 100.68, exited +0.10R on the LVTD gate.
First appearance in the sprint for this name. Small, clean, exactly the
kind of outcome the gate is built to produce on a breakout that doesn’t
bring the volume with it.
→ AXGN (#12, 05-Jul): order never triggered. N/A. No fill, no cost, no
story — which is itself the story. A setup that doesn’t trigger costs
nothing, and it still occupies its own row in this log, exactly like
every other outcome.
→ NTRS (#13, 05-Jul): filled at 177.80, exited +0.63R on the LVTD gate —
the best save of the week.
→ NTRS (#14, 06-Jul): the SAME stock, re-armed the very next evening,
filled at 181.26, exited +0.02R — a save so marginal it’s practically a
breakeven scratch.
═══════════════════════════════════════════
NTRS, TWICE: THE SAME PROCESS, TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS
═══════════════════════════════════════════
This is the trade worth sitting with this week.
NTRS filled on Sunday’s order, got exited on no volume for a strong
+0.63R. The very next evening, with the setup still qualifying, the order
was re-armed — same mechanics, same rules, no discretion, no “let’s give
this one a rest.” It filled again on Tuesday, and this time the LVTD exit
came in at +0.02R. Basically nothing.
Look at those two numbers side by side: +0.63R and +0.02R, four calendar
days apart, same ticker, same process. If you were grading the system on
outcomes, the first fill looks like a win worth celebrating and the
second looks barely worth logging. But the system doesn’t grade outcomes
— it grades whether the same mechanical steps got followed both times.
And they did, identically: order placed the evening before, filled, gate
checked at 15:45 ET, exited at 15:55 ET when the volume wasn’t there.
That’s what “no discretion” actually looks like in practice. Not just
cutting losers on schedule — repeating the exact same unglamorous process
on a name that already paid you well, without asking whether it “deserves”
another shot or whether you’re pushing your luck. The setup either
qualifies or it doesn’t. It doesn’t remember what it did for you last
time.
═══════════════════════════════════════════
THE OTHER HALF OF DISCIPLINE: LETTING WINNERS RUN
═══════════════════════════════════════════
Everything above is about cutting fast — LVTD exits, a scratch on NTRS,
a name that never even filled. That’s one half of the system. Here’s the
other half, and it’s just as mechanical.
CAKE (#1, opened 6 June) and ZION (#2, opened 10 June) are the sprint’s
two oldest open positions — the very first trades logged, back when this
tracker started. Both have since done what a KISS setup is supposed to
do when it’s right: run. CAKE is sitting around +4.7R. ZION is around
+2.3R. Both crossed the +2R mark, and on both, the rule fired exactly as
written — sell half, move the stop to breakeven, trail the rest on a
daily close below the 20 MA.
That’s the part people forget to notice. The system isn’t just a set of
brakes. Once a position proves itself past +2R, the stop moves to
breakeven and the remaining half is running on the house’s money —
literally a free trade. No target was guessed at. No profit was taken
early out of nerves. The same absence of discretion that cuts a loser at
15:55 ET is what lets a winner like CAKE keep compounding two months
later, untouched, because the rule for winners is just as fixed as the
rule for volume: don’t move the stop up manually, don’t take profit on a
feeling, trail the 20 MA and let it work.
Cutting fast and letting winners run look like opposite instincts. In
this system they’re the same instinct, pointed in two directions.
═══════════════════════════════════════════
THE LESSON INTO WEEK 5
═══════════════════════════════════════════
Four new trades, three saves, one scratch that cost nothing, and two old
positions quietly compounding risk-free in the background — a sprint R
that’s finally positive almost by accident, the natural result of
following the same rules enough times in a row, in both directions. None
of that changes what happens next. Six trades remain. The bar is still
90% compliance, not a green number on a spreadsheet.
If anything, weeks like this one are the quiet proof that the process
works exactly when it isn’t dramatic — cut what doesn’t confirm, hold
what does, and don’t touch either decision once it’s made. Boring is the
goal.
Six to go. Same process. Every time.
───────────────────────────────────────────
Trade Tight · Think in R · Focus on Process
Trade Tight, RB
───────────────────────────────────────────
⚠️ Educational only. Not financial advice. This is a paper sprint — a
public record of process, not a profit claim. Always DYOR.