General technical commentary only — not financial advice. Full disclaimer below.
SwingRoo
Playbook Volatility

The ATR Invalidation Level

Every SwingRoo analysis quotes a level a fixed multiple of ATR beneath the close. The multiple is a convention. The distance it produces is a measurement — and on the ASX those two facts come apart more often than the arithmetic suggests.

One

What it measures

Every SwingRoo analysis quotes two prices beneath the most recent close, one at a single ATR and one at twice it. The second carries the technical invalidation label, and it is the one that reaches Key Levels and the scenario table.

Both are the same arithmetic with a different multiplier: a price sitting a fixed multiple of Average True Range below the close.

TR = max(High - Low, |High - prev Close|, |Low - prev Close|) ATR(14) = Wilder smoothing of TR, alpha = 1/14 1x level = Close - 1 x ATR(14) 2x level = Close - 2 x ATR(14)

The two halves of that block do different kinds of work. The multiple is chosen. The distance it produces is measured, because ATR reports how much ground the stock has actually been covering from one session to the next.

There is no threshold to cross and no zero line anywhere in it. The reference point is the most recent close, and the multiple is the only free parameter in the whole construction.

The same multiple applied to every bar — the distance moves because the range moves
The same multiple applied to every bar — the distance moves because the range moves

The figure follows one stock across 250 sessions with the multiple fixed at two throughout. The distance beneath the close reads 4.5% at the first marker and 9.7% at the second.

Nothing about the arithmetic changed between them. The lower panel is the reason — ATR roughly doubled, and the same multiple applied to a larger number lands further away.

The middle of that window repays a second look. Inside the stretch where the band is widest there is an 11.8% decline, and the band is as wide through the decline as through the advance on either side of it.

True Range counts ground covered, not the direction it was covered in. Section four comes back to that, but the figure has already shown it.

Why our reading will not match your platform SwingRoo applies Wilder's recursion as an exponential mean with alpha of one fourteenth, started from the first true range rather than from a 14-session simple mean of true range. The recursion is the same; the starting value is not, so early readings differ from platforms that seed with the simple mean and converge as history lengthens. ATR is computed across the display window plus roughly 300 additional sessions and then sliced, so the figure at the left edge of a 90-session chart is already warm.

Average True Range itself comes from J. Welles Wilder Jr., New Concepts in Technical Trading Systems (1978), where it is defined as a measure of volatility.

Placing a reference level at a multiple of that measure is a later convention built on top of the definition, and section four is about where the convention came from.

Two

How to read it

The reading is a percentage before it is a price. A level 4% beneath the close and one 9% beneath the close describe two different stocks even when the dollar figures are similar.

ReadingWhat it says
Level sits far below the close in percentage termsRecent daily ranges have been wide; the same multiple buys more room
Level sits close to the price in percentage termsRange has compressed; the same multiple buys less room, and ordinary movement reaches it sooner
ATR rising while price risesThe level trails upward, but the gap beneath the close widens at the same time
ATR rising while price fallsThe level falls faster than price — the distance widens on the way down, when it is least useful
Level coincides with a retracement or a prior shelfTwo unrelated methods arrive at the same price; the agreement is the information, not either figure alone
Price already beneath the levelThe move the analysis described has been contradicted by the chart's own volatility yardstick

The event the level describes is a daily close beneath it. Intraday penetration is a different thing, because the level is constructed from closing prices and we quote it against the close.

That is also why the analyses carry both multiples rather than one. The 1× figure sits inside the ground an ordinary session already covers; the 2× figure is the one the scenario table treats as a structural break.

Three

In practice

Three stocks from the scan of 2 August 2026 landed at three different distances — same index, same scan date, same multiple of two. That shared arrangement is what makes the comparison mean anything.

Viva Energy Group (VEA) — The ATR Invalidation Level
Viva Energy Group (VEA) — The ATR Invalidation Level. From the 2 August 2026 analysis.

Viva Energy shows the level doing the job it is defined for. ATR(14) at $0.095 was 3.3% of the $2.85 close, lifting off its July lows as the range expanded, with ADX at 33.8 in a strong-trend regime.

The 2×ATR level at $2.66 sat 6.7% beneath the close, and the published analysis names it as the test the breakout has to survive. The panel above shows the range expanding into the move — the one case where a widening distance and the direction agree.

PWR Holdings was the widest of the batch. ATR(14) of $0.44 on a $9.92 close — 4.5% of price — put the level at $9.04, 8.9% beneath it.

ADX read 23.7 there, an emerging trend rather than an established one. The width came from the range, not from the trend.

Bega Cheese was the narrowest, and the pair to PWH. ATR(14) of $0.137 on a $6.09 close — 2.25% of price — put the level at $5.82, 4.5% beneath it.

Same multiple, same index, same scan date: 8.9% on one stock and 4.5% on the other, a factor of 1.98. That number is measured rather than constructed, which is what makes it the useful one on this page.

Bega carries a second reading as well. The $5.82 level landed one cent under the 38.2% retracement at $5.83 — two unrelated methods arriving at the same price, which is the last row of the table above with a real instance attached.

Four

Common misreadings

Six readings of this level recur often enough to be worth naming. In each case the claim describes something the level does not report, and the correction states what it reports instead.

The level is a number to act on.

It reports a distance. It states how far below the close the stock's own recent daily range would have to carry it before the structure described in the analysis has been contradicted. It reports nothing beyond that.

The multiple of 2 is derived from something.

It is a convention. Nothing in the arithmetic produces it. What the arithmetic produces is the scaling — the same multiple lands a few percent below the close on a quiet stock and two or three times that on a volatile one. The multiple is chosen; only the scaling is measured.

A smaller multiple means less exposure.

A smaller multiple places the level inside the range the stock covers on an ordinary session, so ordinary movement reaches it. Distance and exposure are two different quantities, and shortening the first does not shorten the second.

The dotted line on the price chart and the figure in the table are the same object.

The line applies the arithmetic to every bar, so it moves with price and with volatility together. The figure is one bar's arithmetic, taken at the most recent close. Reading the line's history as though that single figure had been in force throughout describes a calculation nobody performed.

A widening distance means the stock is weakening.

True Range counts movement in either direction. A stock making large upward daily moves widens the distance exactly as a stock breaking down does, which is why the level is read alongside direction and never instead of it.

A widening percentage distance means the range has expanded.

The percentage is the distance divided by the close, so a falling price widens it even when the range has not moved at all. Part of what reads as rising volatility is the smaller denominator. The dollar figure and the percentage answer different questions, and only the first is a measurement of range.

The second of those is the reason this page exists, so it deserves more than a line in a table. Nothing in the arithmetic produces the number two.

Wilder's own volatility system in New Concepts placed a reference at a multiple of average range as well. Which multiple it used, and whether it is the one we use, is something we have not checked against the primary text, so no figure for it appears here.

The rule set circulated for the Turtle programme is widely described as placing a level at a multiple of ATR. Those documents are second-hand and no primary source from the traders has been published, so the description belongs to the documents rather than to the people.

Whether a volatility-scaled distance does better than a flat percentage is an empirical question with mixed published results. This page does not settle it, and our own choice of two is a convention we adopted rather than a conclusion we reached.

What the arithmetic does produce is the scaling, and that part is worth seeing on its own.

One multiple, two stocks — identical arithmetic, different distance
One multiple, two stocks — identical arithmetic, different distance

Those two panels are one moment rather than one history. Two stocks, the same multiple applied on the same day, landing 4.55% and 9.75% beneath their respective closes — a factor of 2.14.

That 2.14 is a designed number. The synthetic pair was built to a constraint of at least twice the distance, so the contrast is a property of the illustration rather than a finding.

The measured version is the 1.98 of the ASX pair in section three, and the closeness of the two figures is not evidence of anything. One was constructed to clear a threshold; the other is what a single scan happened to produce.

The distinction against the first figure matters in the same way. Section one followed one stock changing over 250 sessions; this one compares two stocks at a single instant. The numbers are similar by design, and the two claims are different claims.

The last of the six is the easiest to miss, because it hides inside the percentage itself. A distance quoted as a share of price carries the close in its denominator, so a falling price widens the percentage even when the range has not moved at all.

Part of what reads as rising volatility is the smaller denominator. The dollar figure and the percentage answer different questions, and only the first is a measurement of range.

Five

Where it fails

The level has structural limits that apply on any market:

And it has weaknesses specific to the ASX, most of which trace back to when this market trades and what trades on it:

Analyses using this reading

  1. Viva Energy Group (VEA) · 2 August 2026
  2. PWR Holdings (PWH) · 2 August 2026
  3. Bega Cheese (BGA) · 2 August 2026

Last reviewed 5 August 2026