🟢 P&L: +$2.74 — December 26, 2025 Trades
Today finished green, but lightly engaged and intentionally restrained.
This was a post-Christmas, low-liquidity tape with limited follow-through and fast edge decay. At the same time, I was coming off two days away from the market, and there was a real, physical urge to re-engage — not to press, but to recalibrate.
I wanted to feel my hands on the keyboard again, hit a few buttons with very small size, and confirm something important heading into Monday and Tuesday:
that my timing, reactions, and mechanics were still there.
This wasn’t a day to extract — it was a day to get my feet wet without forcing opportunity.
ASPC
Early premarket opportunity with clean structure.
19.48 → 21.00
(Small, clean base hit to re-anchor execution)
AMCI
Primary name of the morning, but edge decayed quickly.
10.13 → 10.18
10.19 → 9.90
10.61 → 10.72
10.72 → 10.74
11.01 → 10.91
11.16 → 10.77
(One solid push, followed by diminishing returns with each re-entry)
ECDA
Late, low-conviction attempt.
1.265 → 1.20
(No real edge — quick exit, no damage)
Trade Breakdown
Trade 1 – ASPC (Opening Scalp)
Shares: 1
Result: 🟢 Green
Grade: B+
Notes:
Clean execution, small size, no pressure to extend. This trade served its purpose mechanically — confirming readiness without triggering urgency.... saw momentum and took it , held for a while for the pop after it stalled.... it had such light volume, with 1 share, I thought we may get a quick $5-$10 per share move, and I could book small profit quick with small risk. The stock held up, but I didn't choose to wait for the larger move which was eventually $5.00, I just took the $1.52 per share base hit on 1 trade. Correct read on this one.
Trade 2 – AMCI (Early Attempt)
Shares: 5
Result: 🔴 Small loss
Grade: C
Notes:
Reasonable idea, but continuation didn’t follow through. Exit was quick — loss contained.
Trade 3 – AMCI (Second Attempt)
Shares: 5
Result: 🔴 Small loss
Grade: C-
Notes:
Re-entry after information stopped improving. This was the first sign of diminishing edge.
Trade 4 – AMCI (Best Trade of the Day)
Shares: 50
Result: 🟢 Green
Grade: B+
Notes:
The only trade where size was intentionally stepped up. Structure was clean, timing was right, and conviction was present.
This trade validated that reactions and execution were intact after time off. Once this trade was complete, the original purpose of the session had effectively been met.
Trade 5 – AMCI (Noise Re-Entry)
Shares: 5
Result: 🔴 Small loss
Grade: C-
Notes:
Gave back some profit on a low-quality re-entry. The body signal was already shifting toward disengagement, but activity continued briefly.
Trade 6 – AMCI (Further Noise)
Shares: 5
Result: 🔴 Loss
Grade: D+
Notes:
Engagement outlasted information. This trade added nothing and chipped away at earlier gains.
Trade 7 – ECDA (Late Attempt)
Shares: 5
Result: 🔴 Small loss
Grade: C-
Notes:
Late, low-conviction test trade. No real edge. Exit was fast — damage limited.
Trade 8 – Session End / Stand-Down
Shares: 0
Result: 🟢 Win
Grade: A
Notes:
Stopping mattered more than trading.
Market Context
-
Post-holiday liquidity
-
Thin premarket volume
-
Leaders offered brief frontside pushes → quick fade
-
Continuation stalled quickly
-
Persistence was punished
This was a capital preservation + calibration market, not a momentum-extraction environment.
Execution Notes
What Went Right
-
Size stayed small except where strength was clearly shown
-
One well-timed, higher-conviction trade justified increased size
-
Losses remained contained
-
No emotional spiral
-
Purpose of the session (re-engagement + calibration) was met
What Went Wrong
-
Gave back profit on noise trades
-
Continued engagement after confirmation was already achieved
-
Under-engagement would have produced a cleaner result
🎯 Core Takeaway
I gave back part of the day’s profit on small, noise trades taken after the primary opportunity was already captured. Those trades weren’t damaging, but they were unnecessary.
That said, size was applied correctly where strength and structure aligned. The 50-share trade was the right call. The mistake wasn’t sizing — it was continuing to trade after the job was done.
📘 Lesson of the Day
There’s a difference between forcing trades and re-establishing rhythm.
Today’s win was showing up just enough — and stopping on purpose.
🔁 Rule Reinforcement
-
Post-holiday tape = reduced expectations
-
Light engagement is acceptable if size stays small
-
Size up only when structure + conviction align
-
Once confirmation is achieved, disengage
-
Protect rhythm and mindset heading into the next week
Accuracy & Size Context
Accuracy today was very low — only 2 green trades out of 7, roughly 28%. On paper, that’s not a day you’d expect to finish green.
That matters — and it’s worth calling out honestly.
What made the difference was not frequency, it was selectivity with size.
The single trade where size was stepped up (50 shares) was taken when:
-
Structure was clean
-
Conviction was present
-
Body signal was calm, not urgent
That trade carried the day.
Every other trade was intentionally small — effectively test trades — and while a few of those chipped away at profits, they did not threaten the session because risk was controlled.
This highlights an important distinction:
-
Low accuracy doesn’t have to mean a bad day
-
But low accuracy + over-engagement usually does
Today, the mistake wasn’t sizing — it was staying engaged after the size-up trade had already done its job.
Scorecard
Market Read: B-
Execution: C+
Risk Control: A
Emotional Awareness: B+
Emotional Execution: B
Overall Grade: B- (Process > Outcome)
Related Posts
I’m MGK, and at my core I’m an entrepreneur. I’ve built and operated businesses across several sectors over the years — from technology to payments to AI-driven platforms. I love building things, solving problems, and creating systems that make life or business a little easier.