Pattern Detail

Bearish Kicking

Two-candle bearish reversal: a strong up bar followed by a strong down bar that gaps below it, a sharp flip in control.

A real Bearish Kicking on NQ daily bars, Jul 25, 2019. Price then followed through 1.7% over the next 5 bars. The bright candles are the pattern; the dimmed bars are surrounding context.

Shown only on the markets where this pattern occurs.

How to read this

Everything here is in R, the setup's own risk. 1R is the distance from the entry (the pattern's closing price) to where it would be proven wrong — its highest high over the 2 bars that form it. So "offered 2R" means price ran twice that distance in your favor at some point before the stop. It does not assume you took profit there: a target is a strategy choice.

Room offered (≥ 1R)

53.8%

Too few to trust

Offered at least 1× its risk before the stop, vs 40.7% for a random short entry (+13.1 pts).

Move size vs normal

1.84×

Realized range over the next 20 bars vs a random bar. Precedes a bigger move.

Typical room (20-bar)

1.32R

Average run in favor (capped at 3R), vs 1.05R for a random short entry.

Summary

Offered ≥1R 53.8% of the time vs 40.7% for a random short entry. The 13.1-point gap is no bigger than the ±18.9-point margin of error you would get by chance from 26 occurrences. Not a reliable edge.

Room offered, this setup vs a random short entry

Only 26 occurrences. The breakdown below is shown in full, but a sample this small is anecdotal, a hint, not a measured edge. That is usually a limit of available history, not a flaw in the pattern. For a firmer read, try a lower timeframe or a more active instrument.

Outcome	This setup	Random entry	Edge
Offered ≥ 1R Ran at least 1× its risk in favor before the stop	53.8%	40.7%	+13.1
Offered ≥ 2R Ran at least 2× its risk	30.8%	27.7%	+3.1
Offered ≥ 3R Ran the full 3× cap	11.5%	19.8%	-8.3
Stopped < 1R Hit the invalidation stop before offering 1R	42.3%	58.3%	-15.9
Went sideways Neither stopped nor offered 1R within 20 bars	3.8%	1.0%	+2.8

26 occurrences · 1,706,892 random-entry controls · 20-bar horizon

This pattern did not fire often enough on this market and timeframe to measure. Try a lower timeframe or a more active instrument.

How to read this

Room offered (≥ 1R)

0.0%

Too few to trust

Offered at least 1× its risk before the stop, vs 39.2% for a random short entry (-39.2 pts).

Move size vs normal

0.56×

Realized range over the next 20 bars vs a random bar. Precedes a quieter stretch.

Typical room (20-bar)

0.04R

Average run in favor (capped at 3R), vs 1.04R for a random short entry.

Summary

Offered ≥1R 0.0% of the time vs 39.2% for a random short entry. The 39.2-point gap is no bigger than the ±95.7-point margin of error you would get by chance from 1 occurrences. Not a reliable edge.

Room offered, this setup vs a random short entry

Only 1 occurrences. The breakdown below is shown in full, but a sample this small is anecdotal, a hint, not a measured edge. That is usually a limit of available history, not a flaw in the pattern. For a firmer read, try a lower timeframe or a more active instrument.

Outcome	This setup	Random entry	Edge
Offered ≥ 1R Ran at least 1× its risk in favor before the stop	0.0%	39.2%	-39.2
Offered ≥ 2R Ran at least 2× its risk	0.0%	27.2%	-27.2
Offered ≥ 3R Ran the full 3× cap	0.0%	20.3%	-20.3
Stopped < 1R Hit the invalidation stop before offering 1R	0.0%	59.3%	-59.3
Went sideways Neither stopped nor offered 1R within 20 bars	100.0%	1.6%	+98.4

1 occurrences · 119,349 random-entry controls · 20-bar horizon

How to read this

Room offered (≥ 1R)

50.0%

Too few to trust

Offered at least 1× its risk before the stop, vs 38.9% for a random short entry (+11.1 pts).

Move size vs normal

1.25×

Realized range over the next 20 bars vs a random bar. Precedes a bigger move.

Typical room (20-bar)

1.26R

Average run in favor (capped at 3R), vs 1.05R for a random short entry.

Summary

Offered ≥1R 50.0% of the time vs 38.9% for a random short entry. The 11.1-point gap is no bigger than the ±67.6-point margin of error you would get by chance from 2 occurrences. Not a reliable edge.

Room offered, this setup vs a random short entry

Only 2 occurrences. The breakdown below is shown in full, but a sample this small is anecdotal, a hint, not a measured edge. That is usually a limit of available history, not a flaw in the pattern. For a firmer read, try a lower timeframe or a more active instrument.

Outcome	This setup	Random entry	Edge
Offered ≥ 1R Ran at least 1× its risk in favor before the stop	50.0%	38.9%	+11.1
Offered ≥ 2R Ran at least 2× its risk	50.0%	27.5%	+22.5
Offered ≥ 3R Ran the full 3× cap	0.0%	20.8%	-20.8
Stopped < 1R Hit the invalidation stop before offering 1R	50.0%	59.9%	-9.9
Went sideways Neither stopped nor offered 1R within 20 bars	0.0%	1.1%	-1.1

2 occurrences · 59,789 random-entry controls · 20-bar horizon

How to read this

Room offered (≥ 1R)

0.0%

Too few to trust

Offered at least 1× its risk before the stop, vs 38.4% for a random short entry (-38.4 pts).

Move size vs normal

0.42×

Realized range over the next 20 bars vs a random bar. Precedes a quieter stretch.

Typical room (20-bar)

0.36R

Average run in favor (capped at 3R), vs 1.05R for a random short entry.

Summary

Offered ≥1R 0.0% of the time vs 38.4% for a random short entry. The 38.4-point gap is no bigger than the ±95.3-point margin of error you would get by chance from 1 occurrences. Not a reliable edge.

Room offered, this setup vs a random short entry

Outcome	This setup	Random entry	Edge
Offered ≥ 1R Ran at least 1× its risk in favor before the stop	0.0%	38.4%	-38.4
Offered ≥ 2R Ran at least 2× its risk	0.0%	27.5%	-27.5
Offered ≥ 3R Ran the full 3× cap	0.0%	21.2%	-21.2
Stopped < 1R Hit the invalidation stop before offering 1R	100.0%	60.7%	+39.3
Went sideways Neither stopped nor offered 1R within 20 bars	0.0%	0.9%	-0.9

1 occurrences · 27,675 random-entry controls · 20-bar horizon

How to read this

Room offered (≥ 1R)

0.0%

Too few to trust

Offered at least 1× its risk before the stop, vs 36.5% for a random short entry (-36.5 pts).

Move size vs normal

0.89×

Realized range over the next 20 bars vs a random bar. Precedes a quieter stretch.

Typical room (20-bar)

0.23R

Average run in favor (capped at 3R), vs 0.99R for a random short entry.

Summary

Offered ≥1R 0.0% of the time vs 36.5% for a random short entry. The 36.5-point gap is no bigger than the ±66.7-point margin of error you would get by chance from 2 occurrences. Not a reliable edge.

Room offered, this setup vs a random short entry

Outcome	This setup	Random entry	Edge
Offered ≥ 1R Ran at least 1× its risk in favor before the stop	0.0%	36.5%	-36.5
Offered ≥ 2R Ran at least 2× its risk	0.0%	26.8%	-26.8
Offered ≥ 3R Ran the full 3× cap	0.0%	21.0%	-21.0
Stopped < 1R Hit the invalidation stop before offering 1R	100.0%	63.1%	+36.9
Went sideways Neither stopped nor offered 1R within 20 bars	0.0%	0.4%	-0.4

2 occurrences · 4,681 random-entry controls · 20-bar horizon

Limited sample (41). Directional at best.

How to read this

Room offered (≥ 1R)

26.8%

Not reliable

Offered at least 1× its risk before the stop, vs 38.5% for a random short entry (-11.6 pts).

Move size vs normal

1.98×

Realized range over the next 20 bars vs a random bar. Precedes a bigger move.

Typical room (20-bar)

0.63R

Average run in favor (capped at 3R), vs 0.95R for a random short entry.

Summary

Offered ≥1R 26.8% of the time vs 38.5% for a random short entry. The 11.6-point gap is no bigger than the ±14.9-point margin of error you would get by chance from 41 occurrences. Not a reliable edge.

Room offered, this setup vs a random short entry

Outcome	This setup	Random entry	Edge
Offered ≥ 1R Ran at least 1× its risk in favor before the stop	26.8%	38.5%	-11.6
Offered ≥ 2R Ran at least 2× its risk	12.2%	25.2%	-13.0
Offered ≥ 3R Ran the full 3× cap	2.4%	17.2%	-14.7
Stopped < 1R Hit the invalidation stop before offering 1R	65.9%	60.5%	+5.4
Went sideways Neither stopped nor offered 1R within 20 bars	7.3%	1.1%	+6.3

41 occurrences · 1,599,351 random-entry controls · 20-bar horizon

How to read this

Room offered (≥ 1R)

22.2%

Too few to trust

Offered at least 1× its risk before the stop, vs 38.7% for a random short entry (-16.5 pts).

Move size vs normal

2.04×

Realized range over the next 20 bars vs a random bar. Precedes a bigger move.

Typical room (20-bar)

0.72R

Average run in favor (capped at 3R), vs 1.00R for a random short entry.

Summary

Offered ≥1R 22.2% of the time vs 38.7% for a random short entry. The 16.5-point gap is no bigger than the ±31.8-point margin of error you would get by chance from 9 occurrences. Not a reliable edge.

Room offered, this setup vs a random short entry

Only 9 occurrences. The breakdown below is shown in full, but a sample this small is anecdotal, a hint, not a measured edge. That is usually a limit of available history, not a flaw in the pattern. For a firmer read, try a lower timeframe or a more active instrument.

Outcome	This setup	Random entry	Edge
Offered ≥ 1R Ran at least 1× its risk in favor before the stop	22.2%	38.7%	-16.5
Offered ≥ 2R Ran at least 2× its risk	0.0%	26.0%	-26.0
Offered ≥ 3R Ran the full 3× cap	0.0%	18.6%	-18.6
Stopped < 1R Hit the invalidation stop before offering 1R	44.4%	60.1%	-15.7
Went sideways Neither stopped nor offered 1R within 20 bars	33.3%	1.2%	+32.1

9 occurrences · 344,822 random-entry controls · 20-bar horizon

How to read this

Room offered (≥ 1R)

0.0%

Too few to trust

Offered at least 1× its risk before the stop, vs 38.5% for a random short entry (-38.5 pts).

Move size vs normal

0.54×

Realized range over the next 20 bars vs a random bar. Precedes a quieter stretch.

Typical room (20-bar)

0.43R

Average run in favor (capped at 3R), vs 1.01R for a random short entry.

Summary

Offered ≥1R 0.0% of the time vs 38.5% for a random short entry. The 38.5-point gap is no bigger than the ±55.1-point margin of error you would get by chance from 3 occurrences. Not a reliable edge.

Room offered, this setup vs a random short entry

Only 3 occurrences. The breakdown below is shown in full, but a sample this small is anecdotal, a hint, not a measured edge. That is usually a limit of available history, not a flaw in the pattern. For a firmer read, try a lower timeframe or a more active instrument.

Outcome	This setup	Random entry	Edge
Offered ≥ 1R Ran at least 1× its risk in favor before the stop	0.0%	38.5%	-38.5
Offered ≥ 2R Ran at least 2× its risk	0.0%	26.4%	-26.4
Offered ≥ 3R Ran the full 3× cap	0.0%	19.5%	-19.5
Stopped < 1R Hit the invalidation stop before offering 1R	66.7%	60.0%	+6.6
Went sideways Neither stopped nor offered 1R within 20 bars	33.3%	1.4%	+31.9

3 occurrences · 117,604 random-entry controls · 20-bar horizon

How to read this

Room offered (≥ 1R)

100.0%

Too few to trust

Offered at least 1× its risk before the stop, vs 38.9% for a random short entry (+61.1 pts).

Move size vs normal

2.09×

Realized range over the next 20 bars vs a random bar. Precedes a bigger move.

Typical room (20-bar)

1.94R

Average run in favor (capped at 3R), vs 1.03R for a random short entry.

Summary

Offered ≥1R 100.0% of the time vs 38.9% for a random short entry. The 61.1-point gap is no bigger than the ±95.5-point margin of error you would get by chance from 1 occurrences. Not a reliable edge.

Room offered, this setup vs a random short entry

Outcome	This setup	Random entry	Edge
Offered ≥ 1R Ran at least 1× its risk in favor before the stop	100.0%	38.9%	+61.1
Offered ≥ 2R Ran at least 2× its risk	0.0%	27.3%	-27.3
Offered ≥ 3R Ran the full 3× cap	0.0%	20.4%	-20.4
Stopped < 1R Hit the invalidation stop before offering 1R	0.0%	60.1%	-60.1
Went sideways Neither stopped nor offered 1R within 20 bars	0.0%	1.0%	-1.0

1 occurrences · 59,279 random-entry controls · 20-bar horizon

How to read this

Room offered (≥ 1R)

100.0%

Too few to trust

Offered at least 1× its risk before the stop, vs 37.6% for a random short entry (+62.4 pts).

Move size vs normal

1.16×

Realized range over the next 20 bars vs a random bar. Precedes a bigger move.

Typical room (20-bar)

2.71R

Average run in favor (capped at 3R), vs 1.02R for a random short entry.

Summary

Offered ≥1R 100.0% of the time vs 37.6% for a random short entry. The 62.4-point gap is no bigger than the ±94.9-point margin of error you would get by chance from 1 occurrences. Not a reliable edge.

Room offered, this setup vs a random short entry

Outcome	This setup	Random entry	Edge
Offered ≥ 1R Ran at least 1× its risk in favor before the stop	100.0%	37.6%	+62.4
Offered ≥ 2R Ran at least 2× its risk	100.0%	28.5%	+71.5
Offered ≥ 3R Ran the full 3× cap	0.0%	21.9%	-21.9
Stopped < 1R Hit the invalidation stop before offering 1R	0.0%	61.9%	-61.9
Went sideways Neither stopped nor offered 1R within 20 bars	0.0%	0.5%	-0.5

1 occurrences · 4,671 random-entry controls · 20-bar horizon

A bearish kicking is a violent two-candle flip. A long up bar with almost no wicks runs with the trend, then the very next bar gaps down below it and falls hard, also with almost no wicks. There is empty space between the two bodies. Buyers were fully in charge one session and gone the next. The gap and the two clean bodies make it one of the sharpest turns on the chart.

How to spot it

The market is rising into the pattern.
The first candle is a long up (green) candle with little or no wick.
The second candle gaps down below the first.
The second candle is a long down (red) candle with little or no wick.
The empty gap between the two bodies is the key feature.

The dashed box on the chart above marks the 2 candles on a real occurrence, with the advance before and the move after.

The psychology

The first candle is buyers in full command. A long up bar with almost no wicks means price opened low, ran high, and barely gave anything back. After an advance, this looks like the trend at its most confident.

The next bar erases that confidence in a single leap. Price gaps down below the entire first candle, opens there, and falls hard with clean bodies and no wicks of its own. The empty space between the two bars is the heart of it: the market did not drift from buying to selling, it jumped. Whatever buyers thought they controlled at one close was simply abandoned by the next open, with no overlap and no fight in between. Sellers seized the session from the first tick on the down side, and the gap leaves every recent buyer trapped above with no graceful exit.

Whether a flip that violent actually carries through is what the figures below test.

Does it actually work?

A pattern is a setup, not a trade, so the honest question is not “did it win” but “how much room did it tend to offer before it was proven wrong.” The tabs below answer that across five futures markets (Nasdaq, S&P 500, gold, crude oil, natural gas) and seven timeframes from one minute to one day.

For each occurrence we measure the room the move offered in units of the pattern’s own risk, then set it against what a random entry on the same market would have done. When the pattern offers more room more often than chance, that shows up as a real edge. When it does not, the page says so plainly.

Read it with the sample size in view. On the faster timeframes a pattern can fire thousands of times, enough to trust. On the daily chart it is far rarer, so treat those numbers as a hint rather than a verdict. Thin samples are flagged for you on the page.

How we measured it

Entry is the close of the final candle of the pattern.
One unit of risk, 1R, is the distance from that close up to the pattern’s invalidation point: the highest high of the two candles that form it. If price trades through there, the setup is wrong.
We then follow the next 20 bars and record how far price ran in your favor, in multiples of that risk, before the stop was hit.
Every figure is set against a random entry on the same market and timeframe, so the market’s own drift is accounted for.
No profit target and no position sizing. Where you take profit is a strategy choice; this measures only the room the pattern tends to give.

What this page does not cover

Volume on the pattern’s candles.
Whether the pattern forms at a meaningful resistance level.
Pairing it with a trend filter or a confirming signal.
A profit target or position sizing. We use the pattern’s own invalidation point as the stop to define risk, but where you take profit, and how much you put on, are strategy decisions this page leaves to you.

Sample Bearish Kicking Firings (20)

Based on data through Apr 29, 2026

Time	Risk (pts)	Room offered	Result
Apr 11, 2023, 8:30 AM CDT	28.25	1.30R	Ran ≥1R
Sep 16, 2011, 8:51 AM CDT	4.75	0.05R	Stopped
Sep 8, 2011, 11:24 AM CDT	1.75	3.00R	Ran ≥1R
Aug 10, 2011, 8:30 AM CDT	59.25	0.18R	Flat
May 30, 2011, 9:35 AM CDT	0.75	0.67R	Stopped
Sep 6, 2010, 9:16 AM CDT	0.75	2.67R	Ran ≥1R
May 20, 2009, 2:20 PM CDT	2.75	1.91R	Ran ≥1R
Mar 24, 2009, 2:31 PM CDT	3.25	0.31R	Stopped
Mar 16, 2009, 10:16 AM CDT	1.5	0.33R	Stopped
Mar 13, 2009, 9:10 AM CDT	3	3.00R	Ran ≥1R
Mar 9, 2009, 2:10 PM CDT	3	1.92R	Ran ≥1R
Mar 3, 2009, 10:10 AM CST	4.5	1.06R	Ran ≥1R
Feb 23, 2009, 11:45 AM CST	1.25	0.40R	Stopped
Feb 23, 2009, 9:51 AM CST	2.5	2.10R	Ran ≥1R
Feb 20, 2009, 10:23 AM CST	1.75	0.43R	Stopped
Feb 19, 2009, 12:46 PM CST	2	0.00R	Stopped
Jan 27, 2009, 11:57 AM CST	2.75	1.91R	Ran ≥1R
Jan 16, 2009, 12:37 PM CST	2.75	0.09R	Stopped
Dec 26, 2008, 12:34 PM CST	0.5	2.50R	Ran ≥1R
Dec 11, 2008, 12:11 PM CST	1.5	3.00R	Ran ≥1R

Time	Risk (pts)	Room offered	Result
Oct 30, 2025, 8:30 AM CDT	312.75	0.04R	Flat

Sample Bearish Kicking Firings (2)

Based on data through Apr 29, 2026

Time	Risk (pts)	Room offered	Result
Feb 4, 2026, 8:30 AM CST	264.75	2.46R	Ran ≥1R
Jan 17, 2024, 8:30 AM CST	262.75	0.07R	Stopped

Time	Risk (pts)	Room offered	Result
Jul 25, 2019, 8:30 AM CDT	67.5	0.36R	Stopped

Sample Bearish Kicking Firings (2)

Based on data through Apr 29, 2026

Date	Risk (pts)	Room offered	Result
Jul 25, 2019	79.75	0.00R	Stopped
Mar 22, 2019	179	0.46R	Stopped

Sample Bearish Kicking Firings (20)

Based on data through Apr 29, 2026

Time	Risk (pts)	Room offered	Result
Sep 13, 2017, 8:30 AM CDT	4.75	0.11R	Flat
Nov 28, 2011, 9:12 AM CST	1	0.00R	Stopped
Oct 14, 2011, 2:35 PM CDT	1	3.00R	Ran ≥1R
Sep 8, 2011, 11:14 AM CDT	1.25	0.40R	Stopped
Sep 6, 2011, 2:26 PM CDT	1.25	2.20R	Ran ≥1R
Aug 12, 2011, 1:03 PM CDT	1	0.00R	Stopped
Dec 13, 2010, 12:58 PM CST	0.5	0.00R	Stopped
Nov 16, 2010, 1:52 PM CST	0.75	0.00R	Stopped
Nov 16, 2010, 8:39 AM CST	1.25	0.00R	Stopped
Nov 11, 2010, 2:00 PM CST	1	0.25R	Stopped
Oct 15, 2010, 12:31 PM CDT	0.75	0.33R	Stopped
Oct 8, 2010, 8:54 AM CDT	1.5	1.33R	Ran ≥1R
Sep 1, 2010, 9:56 AM CDT	1	1.50R	Ran ≥1R
Jul 20, 2010, 12:57 PM CDT	1	0.25R	Stopped
Jul 19, 2010, 10:09 AM CDT	1	0.50R	Stopped
Jun 7, 2010, 2:48 PM CDT	1.25	0.20R	Stopped
Jun 3, 2010, 11:49 AM CDT	1.25	1.00R	Ran ≥1R
May 28, 2010, 11:14 AM CDT	1.25	0.40R	Stopped
May 19, 2010, 11:29 AM CDT	2	2.00R	Ran ≥1R
May 18, 2010, 10:13 AM CDT	1.25	0.00R	Stopped

Sample Bearish Kicking Firings (9)

Based on data through Apr 29, 2026

Time	Risk (pts)	Room offered	Result
Aug 2, 2024, 8:30 AM CDT	95.75	0.57R	Flat
Jan 11, 2022, 8:30 AM CST	19.25	0.96R	Flat
Oct 14, 2011, 2:35 PM CDT	3.25	0.92R	Stopped
Aug 10, 2011, 8:30 AM CDT	32.75	0.48R	Flat
Sep 8, 2010, 9:15 AM CDT	2	0.00R	Stopped
Mar 16, 2010, 9:15 AM CDT	1.5	0.33R	Stopped
Nov 17, 2009, 10:40 AM CST	1	1.00R	Ran ≥1R
Aug 7, 2009, 10:40 AM CDT	3	0.50R	Stopped
Nov 20, 2008, 10:05 AM CST	8.5	1.71R	Ran ≥1R

Sample Bearish Kicking Firings (3)

Based on data through Apr 29, 2026

Time	Risk (pts)	Room offered	Result
Oct 1, 2024, 8:30 AM CDT	45	0.94R	Flat
Aug 5, 2013, 8:30 AM CDT	5.5	0.14R	Stopped
Apr 14, 2010, 12:30 PM CDT	2.25	0.22R	Stopped

Time	Risk (pts)	Room offered	Result
May 5, 2022, 8:30 AM CDT	82	1.94R	Ran ≥1R

Date	Risk (pts)	Room offered	Result
Jun 19, 2013	25.75	2.71R	Ran ≥1R

Backtest this pattern

Run it on your contracts, timeframes, and dates.

Run backtest →