Trading plan and setup playbook

By Jarosław Wasiński • Published: Jul 12, 2026 • Updated: Oct 31, 2026

A fillable framework for the two documents that article 15.2 explains in theory: the trading plan (your constitution — eight sections covering limits, hours, procedures and the kill switch) and the playbook (an operational catalogue of setups with A+/B/C grades and historical expectancy). Fields are saved locally in your browser when storage is available; you can print the completed document for signing or export it to a file. The template will not invent the content for you — the figures come from backtesting and your journal — and it does not create an edge: a signature cannot turn negative historical expectancy positive, and a plan alone does not guarantee a slower rate of losses. Together with an archived TXT/JSON copy, the form lets you compare your actions with an earlier written record. Files can be edited, so they are not, by themselves, immutable evidence of timing or authenticity. A written and signed plan is prerequisite 2 of the readiness exam.

Trading plan and playbook template — a completed form with risk limits, a kill switch and A+, B and C setup cards beside a printed, signed plan

The essentials in 60 seconds

Two documents, not one: the plan sets capital rules that remain in force regardless of the market (reviewed, for example, every six months; an error or threat requires an earlier response), while the playbook is a catalogue of setups updated quarterly from the journal — the template takes you through both in that order
Setup grades have explicit criteria: A+ means every necessary condition and quality criterion on the card is met. Historical net expectancy in R and the sample size document the research, but do not assign a grade by themselves. Under the convention in 15.2, B has exactly one predefined quality criterion on the borderline; C fails a necessary condition or has more such deviations. Full risk / half risk / no entry is an illustrative scheme to record in your plan. The form checks the entered figures and reminds you to assess the conditions on screen, in print and in TXT; it does not approve trades
Define the kill switch numerically and specify the procedure when it is triggered; if your provider offers a technical restriction, check its scope and test it. Do not assume that it prevents every loss
The document ends with a signature and a review date: the EOW audit compares trades with the written record, not your memory of it — the printout has signature fields, and the TXT/JSON copy goes into the archive alongside the journal

JavaScript is disabled. You can read the plan sections and print them blank (Ctrl+P); JavaScript builds the playbook cards — without it, they will not appear, and field saving, the completeness counter and TXT export will not work. The setup card structure is described in 15.2.

Before you fill it in: where the content comes from

The template is a framework, not a trading system. The figures for the limits section come from the risk management section, while setup conditions come from your backtest and journal (with stated costs, period, uncertainty and a sample outside the data used to fit the rules; there is no universal minimum of 50 trades). Leave a field blank if you have no data for it, and return after testing — an empty field is more honest than an invented figure.
Filling-in order = document order: first the plan (capital rules that do not depend on the strategy), then the playbook (specific setups). Reversing the order produces a plan fitted to your favourite entry — in other words, a rationalisation.
Field placeholders illustrate the format; they do not recommend values. “1%” under risk per trade shows how to write the answer; your figure comes from your capital, tested drawdowns and tolerance — not from the example.
Complete the plan over several sessions, not all at once. Filling the form from top to bottom in 20 minutes produces a document whose daily limit has no connection to risk per trade or the number of entries you actually take. Local saving is there precisely so that you can leave, check the journal and return.
The document ends with a signature. The printout has fields for the date, signature and next review; update the playbook quarterly from the journal; a six-monthly plan review is an example schedule. A data error, specification change or threat requires you to stop and make a documented correction earlier.

Document 1: trading plan — 8 sections

Eight form blocks cover the nine sections in 15.2: record the mandate alongside the objective in section 1. Fields marked with a bullet count towards the completeness indicator — without them, the document is not a plan.

For daily limits and total exposure, define a single base amount for 1R and how open positions and costs are included. Record the percentage basis (balance or equity), measurement time and schedule for updating base R. If you change that amount during the period, compare monetary results with the limit set for that period; do not sum R values with different denominators. Risk to an ordinary stop-loss is an estimate, not a guarantee of the execution price. A trade's R in the journal is its net result divided by the positive risk planned before entry. After changing position size, these two units must not be treated as identical. Record the rule version, sample source, trade unit and grading criteria on the setup card; link it to testing protocol N and journal F.

In “Process objective and mandate”, include permitted instruments and account type, holding horizon, working method, approved strategy IDs and versions, and restrictions. The nine setup-card fields below group the 13 specification elements from 15.2: “Name” includes ID and version; “Market conditions” includes the hypothesis, context and evidence status (with sample period, source and scope); “Entry rules” includes mandatory conditions, trigger, invalidation, a valid example and a similar but rejected case; “Exit rules” includes entry, SL, TP and the time exit; “Filters and sizing” includes quality criteria, the risk model, costs and prohibitions. Expectancy and sample size are separate research data, while “Downgrade” defines the review procedure. Do not omit an element just because several share a field. You can identify a longer specification by its local filename and version. Sample size must refer to exactly the sample used to calculate the stated expectancy. Describe backtesting, the sample outside fitting, demo and live trading separately in “Market conditions”; do not count the same trades again merely because they appear in several sources. If you present a pooled result, state the sample composition and common definitions of a trade and costs; retain the results for each stage as well.

TRADING PLAN · completed using: forexmechanics.com/trading-plan-template/ · the account holder's private document · educational material, not investment advice

Trading plan changed on schedule; errors and threats require an earlier response

Section 1 · Capital objective and time horizon • Starting capital (money free of liabilities and borrowing — an amount whose total loss would not change your life) • Plan assessment horizon • Process objective and mandate for the horizon (a measurable process, not a monetary amount — e.g. “90% of trades comply with the playbook over a sample of 60+”)

Section 2 · Risk limits — firm and non-negotiable • Risk per trade (% of capital for grade A+ — this amount is the plan's base 1R: calculate all limits below in that unit, so a full stop-loss on a B position traded at half risk uses 0.5R of the limit, not 1R) • Daily loss limit (in base R or as a % of capital — choose one unit and use it throughout the plan; trigger the kill switch at the limit) • Weekly loss limit (in the same unit as the daily limit) Maximum number of correlated positions (a shared currency and the same exposure direction — e.g. long EUR/USD and long GBP/USD count together) • Maximum aggregate risk of open positions (the sum of risk to the stop-losses of all open positions — this is not the same as notional exposure; if you hold one position at a time, enter the risk of a single trade)

Section 3 · Trading hours • Trading days and windows (when you MAY open positions — the rest of the week is closed by default) • No-entry window around tier 1 releases (minutes before and after — choose an explicit time zone and check daylight-saving mismatch periods; see toolkit D)

Section 4 · Trade entry procedure • Steps from signal to order (an enforceable sequence, including the pre-trade checklist from toolkit J as a step)

Section 5 · Managing an open position • Modification rules (moving the SL, partial closes, break-even — and what is NOT allowed: widening the SL or averaging down)

Section 6 · Kill switch — when to stop trading • Procedure after the daily limit (there is ONE numerical limit, in section 2 — here, specify exactly what you do when it is reached) • Procedure after the weekly limit • Hard daily limit at the broker / prop firm (if the feature exists, check what it blocks and how it handles open positions — a blank “not set” does not say whether you forgot, cannot set it or chose not to) • Condition for resuming after the kill switch (what must happen before you return — the procedure is incomplete without this)

Section 7 · Behavioural restrictions • Personal prohibitions (from your own history of breaches — do not copy someone else's)

Section 8 · Audit and review • Review schedule (EOD / EOW / quarterly — schedule from toolkit J) • Conditions for changing parameters (what must happen, and on what sample, before you may change the plan or a setup's grade) • Date of the next plan review • Document version (your own, independent of the template version — increment it with every change so that you can compare two archived TXT files)

Date: ______________ · Signature: ______________ · Next plan review: ______________

Document 2: playbook — setup cards

Each setup gets its own card with figures. Start with one or two — a playbook with six setups at the outset is a wish list, not a tool (which is why the form opens with one card; use the button to add more). The grade follows necessary conditions and quality criteria written before the outcome, as described in 15.2. Expectancy and sample size support a historical assessment; they do not prove an edge or readiness by themselves. The form checks number formats and flags missing data or a non-positive result. The reminder to assess the grade yourself also appears in print and in TXT, leaving a record in the archive.

A setup card in the playbook template showing a validation reminder: A+ declared with +0.3R expectancy and a sample of 18 — the form reminds you that figures alone do not approve a grade; explicit card conditions and a research assessment are required

SETUP PLAYBOOK · A+/B/C grades based on card conditions; net expectancy from the journal as research data · quarterly updates · forexmechanics.com/trading-plan-template/

Setup playbook updated quarterly from the journal — not after a single trade

Print, export and backup

Completed document the printout includes both documents and signature fields; archive the file copy alongside the journal

Printing also works with Ctrl+P / ⌘+P — A4 portrait, with blank fields becoming lines for handwriting and long answers printed in full; you can choose “Save as PDF” in the print dialogue to get a file instead of paper, with the same content and signature fields. Fields are saved locally in this browser on every change (storage status appears in the bar below); “Backup file” downloads a JSON file that “Import backup” can restore in another browser — TXT is for reading and archiving, JSON for transferring. A printed and signed document meets prerequisite 2 of the readiness exam; keep a copy alongside the journal — the EOW audit compares behaviour with the document, not with your memory of it. “Fill with example” shows a complete model plan (USD 15,000 capital, 1% risk, one setup with an illustrative A+ label, fictional expectancy and sample size) — to illustrate the format, not to supply figures for you to adopt. This is a filled-in model document, not a complete, tested strategy. Add your own definitions of the trend, zone, candle and quality thresholds, a cost model, and valid and rejected examples as instructed above. The technical lockout field deliberately remains blank: you can confirm its status only after checking your own account.

A printed and signed trading plan in a binder beside the workstation — risk limits and next review date highlighted, with the trading platform and an A+ playbook setup card on the monitor behind it

Illustrative example: the kill switch that was not set at the broker. A model scenario, not a record of an actual audit: a trader's plan has a daily limit of −2R. The trader did not set it in the broker's panel because “I know when to stop”. On Wednesday the limit was reached at 10:40, after two trades. At 10:47 the trader entered a third — “back to break-even, then stop”. The day ended at −6.3R. That evening, the trader wrote “daily limit exceeded” in the breaches column and was sincerely surprised — because at the moment of the third entry, the limit did not exist as a rule in the trader's mind. It existed as a suggestion. The “hard limit at the broker” field in section 6 requires you to check the availability and scope of the restriction. Not every provider offers it; it may block new orders without closing existing positions. Gaps, slippage and failures can take losses beyond the intended limit. Write down and test a manual procedure as well.

FAQ

Why separate the plan and playbook when they belong to the same workflow?

Because they have different functions and update cycles. The plan sets capital rules that do not depend on what or how you trade — limits, hours and the kill switch; review them at a scheduled date, such as every six months, after analysis. An error or a change in conditions may require an earlier pause and correction. The playbook is an operational catalogue of setups, a living document updated quarterly from the journal: grading criteria and research data are reviewed together. Keeping both in one document leads to changing the daily limit while “improving a setup” — exactly when it should not change. Full explanation: 15.2.

How many setups should a playbook contain at the start?

One or two — and this is not minimalism for its own sake. Each variant requires data with a stated period, costs and limitations. A small sample produces an uncertain assessment, but crossing a threshold of 50 does not automatically turn it into proof of an edge. With six setups, gathering and analysing suitable data is harder; the time needed depends on signal frequency. The form allows up to six cards as its technical limit — not because you need that many in your first quarter. A C setup remains in the playbook deliberately: it is a catalogue of things you OBSERVE for possible future promotion — you do not trade it with money.

When may I change the plan?

Follow the procedure in section 8. The scheduled date is for a routine review; an error, failure or specification change requires an earlier response. Playbook: quarterly review, with decisions about grading criteria based on card conditions and journal data. Plan: six-monthly or annual review. Between scheduled dates, changes go in one direction only — you may tighten the plan (reduce risk or shorten hours), never relax it. Changing a limit “because today is a special opportunity” is scenario S3 in the readiness exam. The form will not block editing on a losing day — but the previous copy remains in the archive with a date and document version, allowing the EOW audit to compare them.

I have completed the template. Do I now have a trading system?

You have a document — a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. A system requires explicit rules and research into results after costs, with uncertainty assessed and validation outside the fitting sample; positive expectancy in a backtest and journal alone does not prove a lasting edge. The template helps you record those figures and establish capital rules before the market tests them. If the expectancy fields are empty, return to the strategies section and the trader's workshop, collect a demo sample and then finish the playbook.

Can I print a blank template and fill it in by hand?

Yes — Ctrl+P (or the print button) on an empty page produces an A4 worksheet with lines for handwritten answers and space for a date and signature in the footer. Some traders prefer to write the first version by hand and transfer it to the form a week later; the effect is the same as long as the document physically exists. As for length: the number of pages depends on the length of your answers and printer settings. Long fields print in full, so the plan and a setup card may span more pages. Keep the rules you need instead of shortening the document merely to meet a page limit.

Illustrative example: a plan “in your head” and drifting rules. A model scenario, not a record of an actual audit: a trader declares 1% risk and a daily limit of −2R — both “in my head”. After eight weeks, the journal shows trades risking 1.4–1.8% and three days with four losses. Asked about the limits, the trader answers confidently: “1% and two losses” — without lying; that really is the trader's remembered version of the rules. Unwritten rules renegotiate themselves, quietly and without an effective date. The signature serves as a personal commitment here, not a readiness certificate. It lets you compare the record with your memory: eight weeks later, you may remember different figures from those you wrote down — and still believe that you remember correctly. In this scenario, comparing the journal with the retained version of the plan reveals the discrepancy.

Illustrative example: three setups and different risk weights. In this model scenario, every setup “looks good” to the trader at entry, and the desire to trade replaces checking the data and card conditions. The results below do not assign A+/B/C grades to the setups: those depend on previously written conditions, not on the average alone. A trader with three setups and no calculated expectancy traded all of them at full risk; the quarterly review (the first ever) showed, over 120 entries: +0.6R on 20 instances, +0.1R on 30 and −0.3R on 70 — the weakest was traded most often because it appeared every day. The quarter's full-risk calculation: 20×0.6 + 30×0.1 − 70×0.3 = −6R. A purely arithmetic variant of the same entries with different risk weights — full risk on the first, half on the second, observation only on the third — would give +12R + 1.5R + 0 = +13.5R. To be precise: sizing does not change any setup's expectancy; it changes which results reach your capital and with what weight. In this historical calculation, excluding the third setup improves the total; choosing it only after seeing the results would be retrospective fitting. +13.5R is measured against one fixed base risk amount, with the same entries and execution prices, costs proportional to volume and scaled positions. It is neither a sum of individual trade R values recalculated after reducing risk nor a forecast for the next quarter.

Illustrative example: a rule you cannot tick off. A model scenario: in “Entry rules”, a trader writes “confirmed breakout from consolidation”. Three weeks later, during the audit, the trader cannot explain what “confirmed” means — and the journal shows 14 trades, half meeting the trader's own criterion and half not, although all were “confirmed” at entry. A rule that cannot be checked as a binary condition BEFORE entry (candle closes above the level: yes/no; volume above the average: yes/no) is not a rule — it is a mood with a signature. That is why the entry field says “binary”.

Related course material

15.2 Trading plan and playbook — the theory and rationale behind every section of this template
15.9 Journal and metrics — the source of the expectancy and sample used to calibrate the playbook quarterly
Section: risk management — where to obtain figures for the limits section
Toolkit D — macro cheat sheet — tier 1 release calendar, with time-zone checks, for the no-entry window in section 3
Position size calculator — volume from capital, risk and stop-loss distance (a step in the entry procedure)
Toolkit J — checklists — the operational layer of the plan: pre-market, pre-trade, EOD/EOW
Toolkit K — contingency plan — the emergency procedures referenced by the plan
Toolkit M — readiness exam — a written plan is prerequisite 2

Disclaimer: this page is educational and is not investment advice. The template organises workshop documents — it does not recommend limit values, instruments or strategies; field examples illustrate how to record an answer, not which figures to use. Enter net expectancy on setup cards, after transaction costs (spread, commission, swap and slippage) — for actual trades, use a reconciled journal and account statement; for a backtest, use an explicit execution and cost model. Do not subtract costs again if they are already included in execution prices or net results. The form does not send your entries to the server. Storage is separate for each language version and browser profile; people using that profile can read it. If storage is denied, you can still work and download JSON/TXT. Each field allows up to 12,000 text units as counted by the browser, and imports up to 6,000,000 bytes. Data stays locally in your browser; clearing site data deletes the draft, so print the completed document, save it as TXT or download a JSON backup.

Forex course toolkit E · version 1.4 · updated: 22 September 2026

Sources

Bailey et al., The Probability of Backtest Overfitting (2015): selecting a variant after examining the data requires selection to be taken into account in the assessment. The study does not establish a universal minimum number of trades.

Internal: 15.2 Trading plan and A+/B/C setup playbook — the scope of nine plan sections grouped here into eight blocks, the thirteen elements of a setup card specification, necessary conditions and grade quality criteria (expectancy and sample size alone do not determine A+), and the review rules reflected in this template.
Internal: risk management section (limits, R-multiples and correlations) and 15.9 Journal and metrics — the source of the figures used to calibrate the playbook quarterly.
Brett N. Steenbarger, The Daily Trading Coach, Wiley 2009 — chapters on written versus declared rules and auditing your own breaches; background to section 7 (behavioural restrictions).

Check which plan version your backup actually contains

A saved form, a readable export and a restoration file can describe different versions. Use the existing controls above, then compare the contents rather than trusting a filename. The following values are fictional planning assumptions, not suggested risk limits.

Give the document a version before checking the allowance

The current exercise plan is P4. It states an account-value base of USD 12,000 and a planned fraction of 0.6%, producing 12,000×0.006=USD 72. An older P3 file uses the same base but 0.8%, giving USD 96. The difference is USD 24. Neither amount guarantees a maximum realised loss. The case compares two written rules; it does not assess whether either fraction is appropriate or whether the account should be funded.

Inspect the backup before treating it as current

The visible form says P4, but the last downloaded restoration file identifies P3. A successful download only establishes that a file was produced, not that it contains the intended version. Compare the plan identifier, base, fraction, limits and setup references. Keep the old copy with its own label. Do not import it into the only current workspace merely to discover what it contains; inspect a copy using the supported safe procedure.

Use each output for its documented purpose

The original tool distinguishes the readable TXT/print record from the JSON backup used for restoration. A readable copy helps review the rule; it is not interchangeable with the restoration format. Check the actual export’s contents and retain the source version alongside it. Local browser storage is a convenience, not an independent archive or a guarantee against deletion. An editable file also does not prove when the rule existed. No storage or import is performed by these new static exercises.

Reconcile the rule and then the permitted action

If an isolated restoration check displays P3, record that result without calling it a valid P4 recovery. Obtain a current backup and verify the relevant fields before relying on it. The restored document still needs the plan’s substantive checks: defined rules, evidence status and current account conditions. A completeness counter cannot turn a copied example into a tested strategy. Preserve both versions and the explanation so a later audit can distinguish an old file from an authorised rule change.

Three exercises with explanations

1. What allowance does the fictional P4 rule calculate?

USD 12,000 base; fraction 0.6%.

A. USD 96
B. USD 72
C. USD 24
D. USD 720

Show the answer and explanation

B. The amount is conditional planning arithmetic; actual losses can exceed the calculated amount.

A. That uses the older fraction.
B. 12,000×0.006 gives 72 USD.
C. That is the difference between versions.
D. That misplaces the percentage scale.

2. What changes if P3 is mistaken for P4?

P3 allowance USD 96; P4 allowance USD 72.

A. Nothing because both are files
B. The base automatically changes
C. The old file becomes immutable
D. The displayed rule allows USD 24 more

Show the answer and explanation

D. Verify the version before interpreting the restored allowance.

A. The substantive fraction differs.
B. The supplied base is unchanged.
C. Saving a file does not make it immutable.
D. 96−72 gives 24 USD more under the old rule.

3. What should support a claim that the current plan was recovered?

The form is P4 but the last backup file identifies P3.

A. A verified restoration of the intended current contents, with the versions kept separate
B. The word backup in the filename
C. A printed signature alone
D. A higher completeness counter alone

Show the answer and explanation

A. Test on a copy and keep the current record protected during the check.

A. The claim concerns contents and version, not the filename.
B. Names can misdescribe a file.
C. A signature does not reconcile the restoration data.
D. Completeness does not establish the intended rule version.

Return to the tool