Canvas & Ratio
Choose your destination platform format
Layout Template
Choose a content structure for your slides
Preset Themes
Typography & Sizing
Brand Kit Customization
AGENCYConfigure brand assets for headers & footers
Outro Slide CTA
Customize your closing call-to-action slide
Background Pattern
Build Your Carousel
Drag and drop any post card below onto a slide, or use the quick buttons to insert content/images instantly!
📝Trading Strategy - POB Many traders use order blocks - I do too. But while backtesting them on crypto, they often: -> got front-run -> were more reliable on higher timeframes -> or didn’t get triggered at all Instead, price often reacts at more specific levels inside the move. > So I simplified it and built a rule-based framework around it. This is what led to trades like the one below. -> POB-> my variation of order blocks Thread 👇
Classical Order blocks work for a reason. > Before price moves, it needs liquidity. That can happen in different ways: > through a liquidity sweep > or through aggressive counter participation inside a move -> large orders get filled -> imbalance is created That’s what drives the initial move.
Order blocks are built on this idea. Once liquidity is taken and imbalance is created: -> price moves aggressively The common approach is to use that move: 1. mark the last opposing candlebefore the impulse 2. wait for the retest 3. enter at the edge 4. invalidation below The problem: They often get: -> front-run I partially respected I or not triggered at all
POB logic POBs work slighlty different Instead of marking the last opposing candle before the move, I focus on the reaction after the sweep. -> the candle with the deepest wick -> Because that’s where the strongest opposing force appears. That’s where I define the level.
First requirement: liquidity sweep You want to see: > price take local highs/lows -> and trigger stops Then: -> a strong reaction in the opposite direction creating distance to the candle with the deepest wick -> leaving a wick behind That wick matters - It shows rejection and defines the reaction point. No sweep I no wick -> no setup
Afterwards: define the level > Mark the entire candle with the deepest wick after the sweep. -> That’s your POB. Then: wait for the retest To refine the setup:Measure the reaction. > from the wick to the maximum reaction point > The wick should form within the lower 50% of that move. If not: > weaker rejection-> lower probability
Next step: retest and confirmation You want price to: -> touch the POB -> ideally only with a wick and an acceleration of price out of the zone For the confirmation: You want a candle close... > back outside the POB > on the same timeframe. -> That’s your trigger. Avoid: -> deep closes inside the POB (these tend to be less reliable) ->The depth of the close is somewhat subjective Best case: -> wick into the level and clean close back outside within the same candle
Next: Execution and risk management Entry: -> after confirmation (candle close outside the POB) > Aggressive entries at the edge are possible with confluence (FVG, golden pocket, .786, VAL/VAH...) > but confirmation is safer. My preferred risk management: > max ~1% per trade > minimum 3:1 RR Trade management: At ~1R: -> move stop to breakeven -> take small partials (to cover fees) From there: risk free
Take profit Targets are not random. I aim for: -> liquidity -> inefficiencies -> prior structure
In this example: I split my entries. > one at the edge of the POB -> within the golden pocket (0.618-0.65) > scaled then after confirmation (candle close outside) This adds flexibility but also increases risk. Best used: -> with confluence; on higher timeframes
Final notes Don’t follow this blindly. > If it makes sense to you: -> backtest it -> validate it -> see if it fits your approach > There is no strategy with a 100% win rate. > Execution and risk management -> always matter more than the setup. Avoid trading into resistance: -> significant EMAs; VWAPs; VAH / VAL > This model works across all timeframes, but is most reliable on: -> 4H; 1H; Daily -> in a huge POB on HTF -> you can search for a local LTF POB within the HTF POB -> works well and brings higher level of confirmation > LTF (5m, 15m) require more experience. The goal is consistency. The strategy provides > logical, institutional concept > rule-based approach > reduction of emotional decision-making > repeatable strategy If applied correctly and managed properly: -> you win more often than you lose (> 60%)