Trading Journal Examples: What Great Entries Actually Look Like

Most Traders Have Never Seen a Good Journal Entry

The concept of a trading journal is straightforward: write down your trades. But when you sit down to actually do it, the blank page raises questions. How much detail is enough? What does a useful entry look like versus a waste of time? How do you write about a losing trade in a way that generates insight rather than just documenting pain?

This article shows four complete, realistic journal entries from swing trades on ASX stocks. Each one demonstrates a different scenario: a clean winner, a well-managed loser, a process error caught by the journal, and a trade held too long. After the four entries, there is a sample weekly review that pulls the lessons together.

All entries use realistic ASX prices and a consistent format that you can adapt for your own journal.

Example 1: A Winning Pullback Trade on BHP.AU

Date: Monday 17 March 2026 Ticker: BHP.AU Direction: Long Strategy: Pullback to 50 EMA

Pre-trade thesis: BHP has been trending up since late February, making higher highs and higher lows. The stock pulled back to the 50-day EMA at $41.80 on declining volume over the past three sessions. The materials sector index (XMJ) is in a clear uptrend. Iron ore futures are holding above US$105/t. Expecting a bounce from the 50 EMA with a move back toward the recent swing high at $44.00.

Entry: $42.10 (bought on the open after the stock held above the 50 EMA on the prior session's close) Stop loss: $40.90 (below the 50 EMA and the recent swing low) Target: $44.00 (prior swing high) Position size: 500 shares ($21,050) Risk per share: $1.20 Total risk: $600 (1.2% of $50,000 account) R-target: 1.6R ($44.00 - $42.10 = $1.90 reward / $1.20 risk)

Exit: $43.85 on Thursday 20 March (sold into strength as the stock approached resistance, did not wait for the exact $44.00 target) Result: +$875 gross, -$6 brokerage (2 x $3 Stake), +$869 net R-multiple achieved: 1.46R

Post-trade notes: The trade played out almost exactly as planned. Entry was at the 50 EMA, volume expanded on the bounce day, and the stock moved to within $0.15 of the target in four days. I exited slightly early at $43.85 rather than holding for $44.00 because the stock showed selling pressure in the last 30 minutes. In hindsight, it reached $44.10 the next day, so I left a small amount on the table. But closing at 1.46R on a trade that worked as expected is a good result. The thesis was correct, the execution followed the plan, and the risk management was appropriate.

What I did well: Waited for the pullback rather than chasing the trend. Sized the position based on the stop distance. Exited at a logical level rather than holding for a round number.

What I would change: Nothing significant. Could have held for the full target, but the decision to exit into strength was defensible.

Example 2: A Losing Trade Managed Correctly

Date: Wednesday 19 March 2026 Ticker: NAB.AU Direction: Long Strategy: Support bounce (mean-reversion)

Pre-trade thesis: NAB has been trading in a range between $37.20 (support) and $39.50 (resistance) since mid-February. The stock touched $37.35 today, near the bottom of the range. RSI(14) is at 33, approaching oversold. The financials sector (XFJ) is flat, not trending down. Expecting a bounce from the support zone toward the middle of the range ($38.20-$38.50).

Entry: $37.40 (bought near the bottom of the range) Stop loss: $36.80 (below the defined support zone -- a close below $36.80 means the range has broken) Target: $38.40 (mid-range, conservative target for a mean-reversion trade) Position size: 800 shares ($29,920) Risk per share: $0.60 Total risk: $480 (0.96% of $50,000 account) R-target: 1.67R ($38.40 - $37.40 = $1.00 reward / $0.60 risk)

Exit: $36.80 on Friday 21 March (stopped out at planned level) Result: -$480 gross, -$6 brokerage, -$486 net R-multiple achieved: -1.0R

Post-trade notes: NAB broke below the support zone on Friday after the RBA released updated economic forecasts that were weaker than expected. Bank stocks sold off broadly, with NAB dropping through $37.20 support and triggering my stop at $36.80. The trade lost 1R, which is the planned maximum loss.

The thesis was reasonable at the time of entry -- the stock was at support in a defined range. The catalyst that broke the range (RBA forecasts) was not forecastable. My stop was in the right place and I did not move it or hesitate to exit.

This is a losing trade where the process was correct. The setup had positive expectancy based on my historical data (support bounces in defined ranges win ~58% of the time in my journal). A single 1R loss is the cost of participating in a strategy that works more often than it fails.

What I did well: Sized the position so the loss was under 1% of the account. Placed the stop at a logical level (below support, not at an arbitrary percentage). Took the loss without hesitation when the stop was hit.

What I would change: Could have checked the economic calendar before entry -- the RBA forecast release was scheduled. In future, I will avoid entering new mean-reversion trades the day before a scheduled RBA event.

Example 3: A Process Error Revealed by the Journal

Date: Tuesday 25 March 2026 Ticker: PLS.AU (Pilbara Minerals) Direction: Long Strategy: Breakout

Pre-trade thesis: PLS has been consolidating between $3.40 and $3.80 for three weeks. Today it broke above $3.80 on strong volume. I bought the breakout.

Entry: $3.92 (bought 15 minutes after the open, after seeing the breakout) Stop loss: $3.65 (below the consolidation range) Target: $4.30 (measured move from the range width added to the breakout level) Position size: 3,000 shares ($11,760) Risk per share: $0.27 Total risk: $810 (1.6% of $50,000 account) R-target: 1.41R ($4.30 - $3.92 = $0.38 / $0.27)

Exit: $3.72 on Thursday 27 March (stopped out as the breakout failed and the stock reversed back into the range) Result: -$600 gross, -$6 brokerage, -$606 net R-multiple achieved: -0.74R (exited before the stop was hit because the breakout failure was clear)

Post-trade notes: This trade has several problems that the journal makes visible:

1. I entered late. My breakout criteria require entry within the first 5 minutes of the breakout bar or on a pullback to the breakout level. I entered 15 minutes after the open at $3.92, which is 3% above the breakout level of $3.80. I chased the move.

2. Risk was too high. At 1.6% of account, this exceeded my 1% maximum risk rule. The wide stop ($0.27 per share) combined with 3,000 shares pushed total risk to $810. I should have either used a tighter stop (which would not have been logical) or reduced the share count to 1,850 ($500 risk).

3. The pre-trade thesis is thin. Compare it to Example 1: the BHP entry had sector confirmation (XMJ uptrend), commodity confirmation (iron ore above $105), and a specific price level with historical significance (50 EMA). The PLS entry has a consolidation breakout and nothing else. No sector check, no lithium price confirmation, no volume analysis beyond "strong".

4. I broke my own rules. This is the core issue. I saw a stock moving, felt the urgency of missing out, and entered without completing my checklist.

The trade lost $606, which is painful but manageable. The real cost would be repeating this pattern. The journal entry catches the process error and makes it concrete -- I can point to exactly what went wrong and why.

What I did well: Exited before the full stop was hit when the breakout failure became obvious. Wrote an honest post-trade note rather than blaming the market.

What I need to fix: Follow the entry checklist. Do not enter breakouts more than 1% above the breakout level. Keep risk at 1% maximum. Check sector and commodity direction before entering materials trades.

Example 4: A Trade Held Too Long

Date: Monday 10 March 2026 Ticker: WDS.AU (Woodside Energy) Direction: Long Strategy: Trend continuation (moving average bounce)

Pre-trade thesis: Woodside has been in an uptrend since January, supported by Brent crude holding above US$78. The stock pulled back to the 20 EMA at $26.40 and bounced on good volume. Energy sector (XEJ) is in an uptrend. Targeting a move to the prior high at $28.00.

Entry: $26.60 on Monday 10 March Stop loss: $25.80 (below the 20 EMA and recent swing low) Target: $28.00 Position size: 750 shares ($19,950) Risk per share: $0.80 Total risk: $600 (1.2% of account) R-target: 1.75R ($28.00 - $26.60 = $1.40 / $0.80)

Exit: $26.90 on Monday 24 March (held for two weeks, closed at a small profit) Result: +$225 gross, -$6 brokerage, +$219 net R-multiple achieved: 0.37R

Post-trade notes: This trade reached $27.80 on Wednesday 19 March -- within $0.20 of my target. I did not sell. I moved my target to $28.50, reasoning that the trend was strong and I should let it run.

Over the following three sessions, Brent crude dropped from US$79.50 to US$76.80 on OPEC production comments, and Woodside gave back most of the gains. By Monday 24 March, the stock was back at $26.90, barely above my entry. I closed for +$219 rather than risk the trade turning into a loss.

The lesson is clear: I had a planned target of $28.00. The stock reached $27.80. Instead of taking the near-target exit, I moved the goalposts. The impulse to maximise the winner turned a 1.5R trade into a 0.37R trade.

The data on this is unambiguous in my journal. My planned exits consistently produce better results than my "let it run" improvisations. Over my last 40 trades, trades where I exited at the original target averaged 1.4R. Trades where I moved the target higher averaged 0.6R. The optimism costs me roughly 0.8R per occurrence.

What I did well: The entry was sound. The thesis was well-supported. Risk sizing was within limits.

What I need to fix: Exit at the planned target. If I want to let part of the position run, sell 70% at the target and hold 30% with a trailing stop. Do not move the target on an open trade.

Sample Weekly Review: Week of 17-21 March 2026

Trades this week: 3 (Examples 1, 2, and 3 above) Results: +$869, -$486, -$606 Net P&L: -$223 Win rate this week: 1 of 3 (33%)

Quantitative Summary

Total R for the week: -0.28R Average R per trade: -0.09R

What Went Right

The BHP trade was textbook. Entry at a defined level, supported by sector and commodity confirmation, exited near the target. The NAB loss was managed correctly -- the stop was placed at the right level and I took the loss without expanding risk.

What Went Wrong

The PLS trade was the problem. Not because it lost money (losses are expected), but because I violated three of my own rules: entered late (chased), oversized the risk (1.6% vs 1% max), and skipped the entry checklist. Without the PLS trade, the week is +$383 and +0.46R.

This is the kind of trade that looks like bad luck but is actually bad process. The journal makes the distinction visible.

Patterns to Watch

Looking back over the past four weeks, my pullback-to-EMA strategy (like the BHP trade) has produced: 5 trades, 3 winners, average R of +0.9R. My breakout strategy (like the PLS trade) has produced: 4 trades, 1 winner, average R of -0.4R.

The data suggests I should take more pullback trades and fewer breakout trades -- or revisit my breakout entry criteria. My breakout entries are consistently 1-3% above the breakout level, which may be too late.

Action Items for Next Week

1. Do not enter breakouts more than 1% above the breakout level. Wait for a pullback to the breakout level if I miss the initial move.
2. Check the economic calendar before entering mean-reversion trades on bank stocks.
3. Keep risk at 1% maximum per trade -- no exceptions.

What Makes These Entries Useful

Look at what each entry contains and why:

The pre-trade thesis captures your reasoning while it is fresh. It prevents hindsight rewriting and lets you evaluate whether the thesis was wrong (bad analysis) or the trade was just unlucky (good analysis, bad outcome).

The specific price levels (entry, stop, target) create a measurable plan before the trade starts. After the trade, you can compare what happened against what you planned.

The R-multiple standardises results across different position sizes and stock prices. A $200 profit on a $500 risk (0.4R) is a worse outcome than a $400 profit on a $200 risk (2.0R), even though the dollar amount is higher. R-multiples make this clear.

The post-trade notes extract the lesson while it is still fresh. The PLS entry is painful to write, but it is the most valuable of the four because it identifies a concrete, fixable problem.

The weekly review connects individual trades into patterns. One chased breakout is a mistake. Four chased breakouts with a -0.4R average is a systematic problem that needs a rule change.

Your journal does not need to be as detailed as these examples from day one. Start with the eight minimum fields (date, ticker, direction, entry, exit, stop, strategy, result) and add the thesis, notes, and emotional state fields as the habit solidifies. The format matters less than the consistency.

Disclaimer: This article is general information only and does not constitute financial advice. The trade examples use realistic but hypothetical scenarios for educational purposes. The stocks, prices, and dates are illustrative and do not represent actual trade recommendations. Past patterns do not guarantee future results. Always do your own research and consider your personal financial situation before making any trading decisions.