Trading Journal Mid-Year Review Template

Start by defining what the first half of the year was supposed to accomplish. That means reviewing your original goals, the market conditions that dominated, and whether your trade sample is large enough to support stronger conclusions.

A mid-year review is most useful when it separates context from judgment. If the first half included unusual volatility, reduced participation, or a deliberate strategy shift, that needs to be documented before you decide what to change next.

• Half-year objective: growth, recovery, cleanup, or experimentation
• Dominant market environments across the first six months
• Strategy groups or playbooks that received most of the attention
• Sample-quality notes such as inactive periods or one-off catalysts

The middle of the year is a useful checkpoint because it holds more evidence than a quarter but still gives you time to act before year-end. Group your journal data by strategy, playbook category, or market regime and look for what stayed durable instead of what only flashed briefly.

Pair the strategy analysis with follow-through on prior review actions. If the best ideas keep reappearing in your notes without consistent execution, the real issue is workflow discipline rather than insight.

• Expectancy, average R-multiple, or hit-rate stability by strategy family
• Rule-following rate by setup or playbook category
• Monthly or quarterly action items that were completed versus abandoned
• Mistake clusters that kept recurring across multiple review cycles

A half-year reset is the right time to check whether your risk profile drifted while performance was being reviewed month to month. Look at where drawdown came from, which strategies absorbed the most capital, and whether your risk limits were tightened or ignored under pressure.

This step often reveals whether the next six months need a strategy change, an allocation change, or simply a smaller number of clearer rules. The more honest this section is, the more useful the second-half plan becomes.

• Largest drawdown contributors by symbol, setup, or concentration pattern
• Periods where leverage, size, or open risk expanded faster than review quality
• Strategies that used disproportionate capital for weak process quality
• Exposure habits that should be tightened before the next quarter begins

The output of a mid-year review should be smaller than the input. Summarize what deserves repetition, what needs more deliberate capital or screen time, what should be removed, and what one controlled improvement deserves testing in the second half.

Keep the plan specific enough that monthly and quarterly reviews can score it honestly. If the second-half reset turns into a long wish list, it will not shape day-to-day behavior.

• Keep: one process or strategy that proved durable in the first half
• Scale: one area that deserves more deliberate focus or review attention
• Cut: one behavior, setup, or allocation habit to remove
• Test: one controlled process change to validate before year-end