Why Double Bottoms Are My Most Reliable Trade Setup — And How I Use Them When Markets Get Ugly

*Bob Iaccino, Chief Market Strategist and Co-Founder of Path Trading Partners, joins us live every Thursday from 11am ET, as our risk management educator. With 30 years' experience working as an active investor in equities, commodities, futures and FX there are few better to talk on the subject of risk management.

Bob has developed a method for breaking down his key fundamentals of risk management, in a way that he thinks retail traders can understand and use to get actionable insights to bring into their own trading. Below are some excerpts of Bob’s thoughts from a recent live session. If you’d like to save your seat to watch and participate in the next session, register here.

When the broad market drops 2% at the open and even metals start selling off alongside equities, most traders panic. I use it as a roadmap.

In my March 3rd live session on Market Insights and Strategies here at TradeZero, my co-host Zunaid and I broke down exactly what I was seeing in real time — from the mechanics behind that morning's broad selloff to a live double bottom setup I had entered the day before. We covered the SPY's technical structure, a specific software sector trade setup, and why triple bottoms are not the bullish signal most traders assume they are.

Here's what I walked through, and the thinking behind it.

My First Read: Margin, Not Macro

When you see a sharp, broad-based selloff that hits precious metals and equities simultaneously, my first read isn't macro panic. It's margin.

What happens during extended selloffs is that a significant number of traders and investors are carrying positions on margin. When the market moves against them, they need to raise cash quickly to meet margin calls — and that means selling whatever has been profitable. Not because those assets have fundamentally changed, but because they can be sold.

This creates what I think of as a two-stage drop that traders consistently misread as the beginning of a sustained trend reversal:

• Stage one: Traders who can't afford to sell winners to cover margin calls liquidate whatever they can — often positions that are already underwater.
• Stage two: Traders who can use winners to cover finally do so, and the profitable positions start getting sold.

The tell that you're watching a margin flush rather than a structural break? Watch whether the market produces a meaningful bounce over the next day or two. If it does, you're seeing forced selling exhaust itself — not a new bear trend beginning.

Despite the sharp intraday move, I wasn't sounding alarm bells. My view was grounded in the technical structure of the SPY — the S&P 500 ETF that I use as my primary read on broad market health.

Here's what the data showed on that morning:

1. The SPY had been trading continuously above its 200-day moving average since May 2025
2. From that session's low, the SPY was only approximately 2.2% above the 200-day moving average
3. We were still only about 4% off the all-time high — which feels large in the moment but isn't, historically
4. The 10-year Treasury yield had fallen approximately 18 basis points over two sessions — that, frankly, was the more notable move

For me to become genuinely concerned about a structural trend change in the SPY, I need two things — neither of which was present:

• A close below the 200-day moving average
• A downward turn of the 50-day moving average — the setup that precedes a death cross

Neither condition was in play. We were nowhere near a death cross.

The practical lesson here: don't let intraday noise override your framework. A 2% down day in the SPY feels significant when you're watching it happen. Measured against the broader context, it was a pullback within an intact uptrend — painful for some, but not a reason to abandon your positions or your process.

I Broke My Own Rule — Here's What Happened

The most useful thing I could share that morning was a live trade I had entered the day before — a double bottom setup in a large-cap U.S. software company.

My rule for double bottoms is precise: a close above the pattern's neckline high confirms the trade. In this case, the trigger level was the high of February 17th. On March 2nd, the stock traded above that level intraday. I entered.

I also admitted, with full transparency, that I broke my own rule. I jumpedthe confirmation — I entered before the close confirmed the pattern. I tell people not to do this, and I did it anyway. I want to be honest about that because it illustrates something important: even when you understand a strategy deeply, discipline is a constant practice, not a destination.

Jumping the confirmation means I accepted the trade without full pattern validation. That's higher risk. The upside is a slightly better entry price. The downside is that I could be stopped out before the setup ever officially confirms. That's a cost I accepted consciously — but it's a cost.

How I Structured Every Exit Level Before I Entered

What I want people to take from this isn't the specifics of that particular trade — it's the structure of how I managed it. Before I entered, every level was defined using a Gann retracement (Fibonacci levels work similarly for this purpose):

Decision Point: Action;

• Price reaches the 1.5x extension level: Tighten stop to lock in profitability
• Price reaches Target 1: Take 25–75% off, depending on broader market conditions
• Price closes below the 0.375 retracement level: Exit on the following open
• Price trades below the pattern invalidation level: Hard stop — exit immediately

If the broader market was still weak when I reached Target 1, I planned to take more off (up to 75%). If the market was recovering, I'd take less off (around 25%) and let the remainder run toward the 50-day moving average.

The reason I break stop management into two types — a walkaway stop (a live order in the market) and a close-below stop (monitored at the open each morning) — is practical: I can't always watch the screen every minute of every session. The walkaway stop protects me when I'm not at my desk. The close-below stop gives me a structured decision rule at the open each morning.

Everything was defined. Entry. Stop. Target. Adjustment triggers. That's the only way I know how to trade.

If you can't answer "where am I getting out if I'm wrong?" before you enter, you're not trading a setup. You're guessing.

The Rules I Apply to Every Setup

With a more detailed course on double bottoms coming later this month, I want to give you the quantitative framework I use — because this isn't intuition. It's measurable, repeatable criteria.

For a double bottom to be valid in my system:

• The two lows must be within 15% of each other — measured by retracement, not raw price
• This is the ideal range, and historically these setups have been some of my best performing.

• I will still consider setups where the two lows are within 25% of each other by retracement — but I’m not as excited about these.
• Beyond 25%? I reject the pattern entirely, regardless of how it looks visually

What a Postivie Win Rate Really Means — And What It Doesn't

I want to be careful here, because probability statistics get misused constantly in trading education.

Let’s say you analyse your own trades and find one pattern leads toa 68% win rate. A 68% historical win rate does not mean that in your next 100 trades, exactly 68 will be winners. What it means is that over a sufficiently large sample, that's the tendency the data shows. It also means — and this is the part people skip over — that within any 100-trade sample, you could theoretically have 32 consecutive losing trades and still be perfectly consistent with a 68% win-rate strategy.

Read that again. Thirty-two losers in a row is mathematically possible within a 68% win-rate model. They’re the kind of losses that can do real damage to your trading career.

This is why position sizing consistency is non-negotiable. If you start increasing your size on setups that look especially clean, you're exposing yourself to drawdowns that can permanently impair your account — even while trading a statistically sound strategy.

My rule: use the same risk amount per trade, every time. Don't let conviction override your sizing discipline.

Two other double bottom setups I'd been watching were invalidated by that morning's selloff — one in a uniform manufacturing company, one in a large U.S. electric vehicle manufacturer.

For both, the logic is identical: once price trades below the level that invalidates the pattern, the trade is off. Period. It doesn't matter if the stock subsequently rallies. It doesn't matter if it "almost" triggered. It doesn't matter if I think the company is fundamentally sound.

The uniform maker's invalidation levels were a trade below one specific price point and a close below a slightly higher one. Once that happened, the trade was gone from my watchlist. No triple bottom rationalization. No "close enough." Gone.

The electric vehicle manufacturer's setup — which had about an 8.3% distance between entry and stop — never triggered a buy signal. Again, once the invalidation level was breached, I moved on.

This is a discipline issue, not a market analysis issue. The hardest thing I see traders struggle with is holding on to a thesis after the market has already told them they're wrong. The pattern gave me an entry signal, a stop, and a target. When the stop condition was met before entry triggered, the pattern no longer exists. That's the rule. Follow it.

One thing that consistently surprises traders when I explain my framework: I do not treat triple bottoms as bullish reversal patterns.

In my research and experience, triple bottoms tend to function as continuation patterns to the downside — not reversals. When price tests a level three times and fails each time to break higher, the weight of evidence typically shifts toward an eventual breakdown, not a breakout.

The counterargument I hear frequently is: "But what if it breaks the neckline to the upside after three tests?" My answer is simple: without a pattern I can measure and that has documented probability behind it, I'm flying blind. I might be right. It might go up. But I have no way to define my stop or my target with any statistical validity — which means I have no edge. And without an edge, I'm not trading. I'm gambling.

One of the more interesting points in my conversation with Zunaid was about whether individual stocks have "personalities" — whether deeply knowing how a particular stock moves gives you a durable edge.

My honest answer: price behavior does vary significantly between stocks. The entry-to-stop distance on the electric vehicle manufacturer's double bottom setup was 8.3%. On the software company's setup, it was approximately 6%. That matters for position sizing and volatility expectations — a lot.

But here's the thing. When you study patterns that have repeatable, measurable probability across hundreds of trades, you start to realize that anchoring your identity to a single stock is a limitation, not an edge. "I know how this stock trades" is a belief that can close you off from dozens of valid setups in other names — setups that follow the same structural rules and carry the same statistical probability.

The patterns are the same across stocks. The price behavior differs. Trade the pattern, not the personality.

I'll close with the same thought I left viewers with on March 3rd.

In my view at that time, crude oil was functioning as a key negative multiplier for equity markets. A scheduled government meeting that afternoon — involving key economic policymakers — had the potential to shift the narrative around energy prices significantly. If signals emerged pointing toward lower energy costs, I believed a market recovery could come faster than most participants were pricing in.

I raise this not as a prediction — I am not making any forecast about market direction — but as an example of how macro context interacts with technical setups. Always know what the macro variables are. Not because they override your technical framework, but because they affect how aggressively you manage your exits when you're already in a trade.

I've been doing this for a long time. The traders I've seen succeed over the long run all share a few things in common — none of which are exotic:

• They exit losers quickly and let winners run. Not the other way around.
• They define their stop and their target before they enter. Every time.
• They use consistent position sizing, regardless of how confident they feel about any given setup.
• They trade patterns with documented probability — not gut feelings, not "this stock always does this."
• They don't let a day trade drift into a swing trade, or a swing trade drift into an involuntary long-term investment.

The double bottom pattern, applied with discipline and consistent risk management, is one of the most structurally sound setups I've found over my career. Not because it wins every time — it doesn't — but because it gives me defined entries, defined exits, and documented probability. That's all I'm ever looking for.

The double bottom deep-dive course is scheduled for mid-to-late March 2026. Stay tuned to TradeZero for session details.

This Blog (hereafter referred to as the “Content”) is produced by TradeZero. The Content may include the views and opinions of TradeZero and a third-party participant, Bob Iaccino. Bob Iaccino is compensated by TradeZero for participating in the Content. Mr. Iaccino’s trading experiences and accomplishments are unique, and your trading results may vary substantially from his. TradeZero is not responsible for and neither affirms nor endorses any of Mr. Iaccino’s views or opinions expressed in the Content. TradeZero makes no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy of the Content or information available through any referenced or linked third party sites. The Content has been made available for informational and educational purposes only and should not be considered trading or investment advice or a recommendation as to any security.

Trading securities can involve high risk and potential loss of funds. Furthermore, trading on margin is for experienced investors and traders. Margin trading can result in losses that may be greater than your initial investment. Likewise, short selling as a securities trading strategy is extremely risky and can lead to potentially unlimited losses.

Options trading is not suitable for all investors as it can involve risk that may expose investors to significant losses. Please read the Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options, also known as the options disclosure document (ODD) at OCC before deciding to engage in options trading.

TradeZero provides self-directed brokerage accounts to customers through its operating affiliates: TradeZero America, Inc. a United States broker dealer, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation(SIPC); TradeZero, Inc., a Bahamian broker dealer, registered with the Securities Commission of the Bahamas; and TradeZero Canada Securities ULC, a Canadian broker dealer, member firm of the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) and member of the Canadian Investor Protection Fund (CIPF); and TradeZero Europe B.V., a Dutch broker dealer, authorized and regulated by the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) and subject to the regulatory framework of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) under MiFID II (collectively, the “TradeZero Broker Dealers”).