5 Real Trading Journal Entries (Good vs Bad) — and What Separates Them

Most trading journals don't fail because traders forget to log trades. They fail because the entries only record what happened, not why. Below are five journal entries — one stock, one option, one future, one forex position, and one swing trade — each written twice: once the way most people actually journal, and once the way that makes the entry worth reading later.

What separates a good entry from a bad one

A bad entry is a receipt. It tells you the size, the price, and the P&L — the same three things your broker statement already has. A good entry adds three things a statement can't: the plan you had before you entered, the chart you were actually looking at, and an honest read on what you did well or badly. See what to put in a trading journal for the full breakdown of those layers.

The pattern below repeats in every example: the bad version answers "what happened." The good version answers "was this a good decision, regardless of outcome."

Five worked examples

1. A stock day trade

Bad entry:

• AAPL, long 100 shares, bought 213.40, sold 214.90, +$150

Good entry:

• AAPL, long 100 shares, 5-min opening-range breakout setup
• Plan: enter above premarket high (213.35) with stop at VWAP (212.90), target 2R at 214.25
• Entered 213.40, stopped moving target up as price extended, exited 214.90 — result +$150, but actual R taken was closer to 3R than the planned 2R
• Review: good setup, good entry, but I moved the stop instead of taking the planned target — got lucky it kept running. Grade: B (process was undisciplined even though the trade won)

The bad version can't tell you this was a lucky outcome on a broken process. The good one can — and that's the trade you actually need to remember.

2. An options trade

Bad entry:

• Bought 5 SPY 580c, paid 2.10, sold 1.40, -$350

Good entry:

• SPY 580 calls (0DTE), size: 5 contracts (~2% of account risk)
• Plan: momentum continuation after CPI print, target a 50% gain, stop if SPY loses the post-print low
• Thesis was right on direction but wrong on timing — SPY did move up, but not until 40 minutes after I was stopped out
• Review: the setup and size were fine. The mistake was using an expiration too tight for a thesis that needed a full session to play out. Grade: C (right idea, wrong instrument)

Nothing here says the trader panicked or broke a rule — the lesson is a structural one about matching expiration to thesis, and it only surfaces because the plan was written down first.

3. A futures trade

Bad entry:

• ES short, -2 points, -$100

Good entry:

• ES, short 1 contract, fading a failed breakout above overnight high
• Plan: stop 3 points above entry, target back to VWAP (roughly 1.5R)
• Got the direction right, but exited manually at -2 points on a normal pullback that wasn't near my stop
• Review: no rule violation on size or setup — the only issue was impatience. The planned stop was never actually threatened. Grade: C (self-inflicted loss on a correct read)

A statement shows this as a small loss. The journal shows it as a trade that should have been a winner if the plan had been followed.

4. A forex position

Bad entry:

• EUR/USD short, 1 lot, -18 pips

Good entry:

• EUR/USD, short 1 standard lot (1% account risk), fading a rejection at a weekly resistance level
• Plan: stop above the rejection wick, target the prior swing low (roughly 2.2R)
• A high-impact news release hit 20 minutes into the trade and blew through the stop by 6 pips due to slippage
• Review: process was sound; the loss came from holding through a scheduled news event without accounting for slippage risk. Grade: B (good trade, missing a rule about news-event exposure)

This is the kind of loss that looks identical to a bad trade in a spreadsheet, but is actually a process fix waiting to be made: check the calendar before holding through news.

5. A swing stock trade

Bad entry:

• NVDA swing, bought 12/3, sold 12/11, +$620

Good entry:

• NVDA, swing long, breakout above a 6-week base on above-average volume
• Plan: stop below the base low, scale out a third at 1R, trail the rest with a moving average
• Followed the plan almost exactly — sold the first third at 1R, trailed the rest, exited on a close below the 10-day average
• Review: this is the entry to reread when doubting the process. Nothing lucky about it — plan, execution, and exit all matched. Grade: A

Winners need review too. Without writing down why this one worked, it's easy to credit the wrong thing (the stock, the timing) instead of the actual cause (the plan was followed).

The pattern across all five

None of the "good" versions took longer to write than the bad ones by much — a few extra lines about the plan and a one-line honest review. What changes is what the entry is useful for. A logbook of outcomes tells you your win rate. A logbook of decisions tells you which of your decisions to keep making. For the full list of what to capture up front, see what is a trading journal.

Frequently asked questions

Do I need to write all this for every single trade?

No — start with the plan (one line) and the review (one line). Those two additions do most of the work. The chart snapshot and detailed metrics can come once the habit is established.

What if my trade didn't have a real plan going in?

Write that down too. "No plan, entered on a gut feeling" is honest data, and it's exactly the pattern a journal is supposed to surface so you can see how often it happens.

Should winning trades get the same review as losing trades?

Yes — see example 5 above. A winning trade with a broken process (example 1) is more dangerous long-term than a losing trade with a sound one (examples 3 and 4), because it teaches you the wrong lesson if you only look at the outcome.

---

A free trading journal that makes writing the "good" version the default, not the exception: start journaling free.