Our Journey 🛤️
How ClearLevels evolved from a simple breakout system to the simulated bot we run today.
Our Philosophy
Every change we made involved a tradeoff. We gave up something to gain something else. We believe transparency builds trust—and informed traders make better decisions.
This timeline shows exactly what we changed, why we changed it, and what it cost us (and gained us) at every step.
Directional Bias Filter
Where we are today
We added a pre-market directional assessment that determines which side of the market has favorable conditions. When alignment is poor, we skip the trade entirely.
âś“ What We Gained
- •23-25% smaller drawdowns
- •Consecutive losses drop from 5 to 3
- •Apex account safety: $10 → $643 margin
— What We Gave Up
- •27% fewer trades taken
- •~40% of days have no trades (up from 25%)
- •15% lower total PnL (but higher per-trade quality)
Tight-Lock Runner
Securing profits faster
When the banker target hits, we immediately ratchet the runner stop to just below the banker level. This locks in most of our profit while still allowing the runner to capture strong moves.
âś“ What We Gained
- •+$494 additional PnL on MES
- •+$430 additional PnL on MNQ
- •Captures more runner continuation
- •Reduced giveback on extended moves
— What We Gave Up
- •Occasional early stop-outs on choppy days
- •More frequent stop adjustments
Quality-Based Filtering
Skipping the marginal setups
We started skipping lower-quality setups entirely. When our assessment identifies a weak setup, we sit out rather than take a marginal trade.
âś“ What We Gained
- •~30 low-quality trades removed
- •Win rate jumps ~8 percentage points
- •Profit factor nearly doubles
- •MNQ goes from blown account to surviving
— What We Gave Up
- •Fewer total trades
- •Occasionally skip trades that would have won
Adaptive Position Sizing
Sizing to match setup quality
We began varying target sizes based on the setup grade. High-grade setups get larger targets; standard setups get standard targets.
âś“ What We Gained
- •Better risk/reward on high-grade setups
- •More selective capital deployment
— What We Gave Up
- •Complexity in position management
- •Smaller targets on some setups
Setup Grading
Transparency for subscribers
We introduced a grading system (A+, A, B, C) that described setup quality: how well the levels lined up with the bot's rules. The grade described the setup, not a recommendation to act on it. Alerts have since dropped the letter grade; today Scrooge simply takes the setups that fit its rules and passes on the ones that don't.
âś“ What We Gained
- •Clear communication of setup quality
- •Subscriber confidence in the process
- •Alignment between the bot's grading and subscriber expectations
— What We Gave Up
- •No direct PnL impact—this is about communication
- •Requires consistent grading criteria
Confirmation Candle
Waiting for confirmation
Instead of entering immediately on breakout, we wait for the next 5-minute candle to close in the breakout direction. This filters out false breakouts.
âś“ What We Gained
- •Fewer false breakouts
- •Higher quality entry confirmation
- •Better win rates on taken trades
— What We Gave Up
- •Occasional missed entries that run immediately
- •Slightly later entries on valid setups
The Foundation
Where it all started
Raw breakout trading: identify levels, set alerts, enter on the breakout. Simple, direct, and a solid baseline—but we knew we could do better.
âś“ What We Gained
- •Clean, simple entry rules
- •Clear stop and target levels
- •Workable base system
— What Came Before
- •Manual emotional decision-making
- •No rules—just gut feelings
- •Inconsistent results, high stress
Ready to Follow the Bot?
Follow Scrooge — a simulated system refined through 7 major iterations.
No real money was traded. Results are simulated — forward (paper) trades placed by an automated bot in a live brokerage paper-trading account, with realistic simulated fills and slippage.
HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS HAVE MANY INHERENT LIMITATIONS, SOME OF WHICH ARE DESCRIBED BELOW. NO REPRESENTATION IS BEING MADE THAT ANY ACCOUNT WILL OR IS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE PROFITS OR LOSSES SIMILAR TO THOSE SHOWN; IN FACT, THERE ARE FREQUENTLY SHARP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND THE ACTUAL RESULTS SUBSEQUENTLY ACHIEVED BY ANY PARTICULAR TRADING PROGRAM. ONE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS IS THAT THEY ARE GENERALLY PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT. IN ADDITION, HYPOTHETICAL TRADING DOES NOT INVOLVE FINANCIAL RISK, AND NO HYPOTHETICAL TRADING RECORD CAN COMPLETELY ACCOUNT FOR THE IMPACT OF FINANCIAL RISK IN ACTUAL TRADING. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ABILITY TO WITHSTAND LOSSES OR TO ADHERE TO A PARTICULAR TRADING PROGRAM IN SPITE OF TRADING LOSSES ARE MATERIAL POINTS WHICH CAN ALSO ADVERSELY AFFECT ACTUAL TRADING RESULTS. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER FACTORS RELATED TO THE MARKETS IN GENERAL OR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY SPECIFIC TRADING PROGRAM WHICH CANNOT BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE PREPARATION OF HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND ALL OF WHICH CAN ADVERSELY AFFECT ACTUAL TRADING RESULTS.