1
10-EMA Trigger-Candle Swing (Anant Ladda)
Anant Ladda · watch on YouTube ↗
Detected components (auto-read from transcript)
Claims it makes (quotes pulled from the transcript)
- “One 10-EMA sets the trend (price above = long only). In an uptrend, a red counter-trend candle that holds above the EMA is a 'trigger'; enter on the break of its high, stop at the trigger low / 10-EMA (~1%), target 1:2 or 1:3. Take only the 1st–2nd trigger per trend; triggers that form nearer the EMA win more. Pitched with a pine-script ~54% win at 1:3.”
Verdict
The framework is sound and genuinely teachable — trade with the 10-EMA trend, enter on a counter-trend pullback candle's break, cut the loss small — and Anant is, by his own emphasis, an unusually honest educator (the whole video is anti-hype). His 'avoid the 3rd+ trigger in a trend' refinement is even weakly real in the data (expectancy decays from the 1st trigger to the 3rd).
How we tested it
Mechanized on 158 daily large/mid-caps over 8 years with real Zerodha delivery costs — long & short, with 1:2 / 1:3 / trail-at-EMA exits — isolating the trigger-count and near-EMA claims. 43,000 trades.
But the parts he sells hardest are the wrong parts. The pine-script '54% win at 1:3' is false — measured ~26%, and both fixed 1:2 and 1:3 targets are net-negative after costs across 43,000 trades. His 'triggers near the EMA win more' is backwards — near-EMA entries were the worst (−0.23R), because the tight stop just gets whipsawed; the far triggers lost least. The only positive-expectancy version is the trail-at-EMA exit (+0.11R, payoff 3.7) — the 'advanced' variant he explicitly tells beginners to skip. Same lesson as every trend setup we've tested: let the winner ride the trend, don't cap it at 1:2. Legit framework, oversold/inaccurate rules, and the real edge hides in the exit he de-emphasizes.