Most people ask how to journal your trades and get told to write down how they felt before entry. Calm. Anxious. Confident. I did that for two years. Pages of it. None of it made me better at marking a level, because none of it was about the level. If you trade price action — a blank chart, horizontal lines, nothing else — your journal should track the one thing that actually decides whether you’re improving: did the level do what you said it would do before price got there.
Everything else is noise wearing the costume of discipline.
What most trading journals get wrong
The standard template asks for entry, exit, position size, and a paragraph on your mindset. Some ask for RSI at entry, or where MACD crossed, or whether volume confirmed the move. None of that applies here. There’s no indicator to log because there’s no indicator on the chart. And the mindset paragraph, in my experience, teaches you to narrate your feelings well. It doesn’t teach you to mark a better level.
I’m not against self-awareness. I’m against a journal that lets you feel productive while learning nothing repeatable. Writing “felt rushed, entered late” fifty times tells you that you rush sometimes. It doesn’t tell you whether the 2-touch levels you mark fail more than the 3-touch ones. Only a journal built around the level itself can answer that.
The four fields that matter
My journal has four columns. That’s all.
The level. Price and instrument. $61.20 support on a name like CVNA, or $412 resistance on something like MSFT — whatever it actually was that week.
The touch count. How many times price had stopped at that exact price before I drew the line. Two touches, three, four. This is the single most useful number in the whole system, and most traders never write it down because it feels too obvious to record.
The definition. Before price arrives, I write what “holds” looks like and what “fails” looks like, in specific terms. Holds: a wick through the line, a close back above it within the same session. Fails: a close beyond the line, or two consecutive closes on the wrong side. Written before the outcome exists, not after.
What actually happened. Not how I felt about it. What price did, matched against the definition I wrote in the row above it.
That’s the whole template. No emotion column. No indicator column. Four fields, filled in twice — once when the level goes on the chart, once when price arrives and does something.
Why journaling every emotion misses the point
Emotional journaling assumes the problem is usually you. Sometimes it is — I’ve blown a perfectly good setup by moving a stop out of hope. But most of my losing trades weren’t emotional mistakes at all. The level held exactly the way I’d have described it if you’d asked me two days earlier, and price still moved against me, because a 2-touch level near a big round number isn’t as reliable as a 4-touch level in the middle of nowhere. That’s not a mindset problem. It’s a level-quality problem, and no amount of writing “stayed calm, followed the plan” would have surfaced it.
The version of journaling that works for indicator-free trading treats every loss as a data point about the level first, and a data point about you only after the level checks out clean.
The weekly review: an actual audit, not a reflection
Every Sunday I pull every level from the past week into one list and sort it by outcome. Held, failed, still open. Then I sort the failed ones by touch count. This takes about twenty minutes and it’s the part of journaling that actually changes how I trade, because it turns a pile of individual trades into a pattern I can see.
Some weeks there’s no pattern. Six failed levels, all different touch counts, all different tickers, nothing lines up. Fine — that’s still information. It means the failures were probably just failures, the ordinary cost of trading a method that doesn’t win every time.
Other weeks the pattern is loud. Over one stretch this spring, I pulled eleven failed levels and found that eight of them had one thing in common: they were within thirty cents of a round number. $50.10 support that got swept to $49.80 before reversing. $100.15 resistance that ran to $100.60 before rolling over. Individually each one looked like a normal failed level. Lined up together, they looked like the same trade happening eight times.
I hadn’t noticed it in real time because each failure felt isolated. Marked from three genuine touches, drawn correctly, invalidated cleanly — nothing about any single trade looked wrong. The pattern only existed at the level of eleven rows in a spreadsheet, sorted and looked at together. That’s the argument for reviewing weekly instead of trusting your memory. Memory keeps the trade that hurt the most. A journal keeps all of them, in order, where a pattern can’t hide.
What I changed because of it
Round numbers pull extra volume — stops clustered just past them, orders resting just before them. A level drawn thirty cents from a round number is really two levels fighting for the same territory, and the round number usually wins first before the real level gets its turn. My lines had been drawn at the price where price actually stopped, which sounds right and mostly is, except when that price sits close enough to a round number that the two get confused with each other.
Now, if a level sits within roughly twenty-five cents of a round number, I wait for a fifth touch before I’ll size it the same as a normal 3-touch level. Four touches gets a reduced size. Anything under that, I still mark it — I don’t stop drawing the line — but I treat it as unconfirmed until price proves it’s the level that matters, separate from the round number sitting next to it.
That single adjustment came from four weeks of journal entries, not from a theory I read somewhere. I didn’t sit down and reason my way to “round numbers are dangerous.” I noticed eight rows out of eleven sharing a trait, checked whether it held up over the following month, and it did — failed levels near round numbers still failed more often than levels drawn elsewhere. So the rule stayed.
What the touch count alone taught me
Separate from the round-number pattern, sorting by touch count across three months showed something simpler: levels marked from only two touches failed close to twice as often as levels marked from three or more. Two touches can be coincidence. Three touches is a level starting to prove itself. That’s not a new idea — most price action traders would tell you the same thing if you asked. The difference is I didn’t have to ask anyone. The journal showed it, counted, from my own trades, on my own tickers.
I still take 2-touch setups. They’re not banned. But they get sized down, the same way a wide stop gets sized down in the position-sizing math — smaller position, same dollar risk, because the level itself is less proven.
What a real entry looks like
Tuesday. $34.80 support, name I’d watched for three weeks, four prior touches over that stretch. Written before entry: holds if price wicks below and closes back above $34.80 same session; fails on a close under $34.60. Price wicked to $34.55, closed at $34.91. Held, as defined. That row took four lines to write and thirty seconds to read back a week later. No paragraph about how I felt watching it. I didn’t need one — the outcome either matched the definition or it didn’t, and this time it did.
Keep the journal boring
A good trading journal for this method reads like a logbook, not a diary. Level, touch count, definition, outcome. If you’re trying to figure out how to journal your trades and you trade blank charts with lines instead of indicators, resist every template that asks you to rate your confidence on a scale of one to ten. Confidence isn’t a variable in this method. The level either held the way you said it would, or it didn’t. Write that down, sort it weekly, and let the pattern tell you something a feeling never could.
I review levels like this — marked, defined, and checked against what actually happened — live in Static, the free daily chart room for Draw Lines Make Money. If watching the weekly sort happen on real charts would make it click faster than reading about it, you’re welcome to sit in.
Join the free Static chart room →
Disclosure: that's an affiliate link — I may earn a commission if you join a paid tier later, at no extra cost to you. The free room is free.