Home › Learn › Lesson 16

Bull, bear and sideways — the three phases and how each one behaves

By TradingPrimer · Published 2 Sep 2026

Most explanations of market phases stop at the definitions, which are the easy part and which Lesson 15 already gave you. The useful question is the next one: what does each phase do — to your pullbacks, to your tools, to the number of times a year you are allowed to have an opinion? This lesson answers that, and along the way it turns the course's sharpest line on the subject — if the timeframes point in opposite directions the market will go sideways — into arithmetic. That arithmetic produces one result worth the whole lesson: the gap between a bull and a bear phase is not an event, it is a stretch of time you cannot avoid, and its minimum length can be calculated before it happens.

Bull and bear are shapes on one chart. Sideways is not — it is what you get when the frames you follow stop agreeing with each other.

What are the three phases, in one paragraph each?

Two of them are shapes you can point at on a single chart. The third is not, and that difference is the whole lesson — but take the definitions first, because everything later is built on them.

A bull phase is a sequence of higher highs and higher lows. Price makes a peak, pulls back, and the pullback stops above where the last pullback stopped; then it makes a new peak above the last one. Buyers are willing to pay more than they were willing to pay recently, and sellers are not managing to push price back to where they last managed to push it. The course this site is built from calls that a durable bullish structure, and adds a qualifier worth keeping: the higher the timeframe the structure forms on, the more durable it is.

A bear phase is the same machinery inverted: lower highs and lower lows. Each rally stops short of the last rally; each decline goes further than the last. But the course adds one behavioural note here that it does not add to the bull case, and it matters later: in a bear phase, every bounce tends to be short and to end early. That is not a symmetric statement. Hold on to it.

A sideways phase is where the tidy part ends. The conventional definition is "price moves within a range without a clear direction", which is true and nearly useless, because it describes what you see rather than what is happening. The course gives a mechanical definition instead: the market goes sideways when the timeframes point in opposite directions — and, put positively, for a trend to form at all it needs the timeframes to agree. The reasoning behind it is that each timeframe stands for a different group of participants, with different capital, different horizons and different exit points. When those groups want the same thing at the same time you get a trend. When they want different things you get chop.

Why is sideways not really a third phase?

Because bull and bear describe one chart, and sideways describes the relationship between several. They are not three items on the same list — the third one is a different category of thing, and treating it as a peer is what makes it feel so slippery.

Try to state the three definitions in parallel and the asymmetry shows up immediately:

• Bull: this chart is making higher highs and higher lows.
• Bear: this chart is making lower highs and lower lows.
• Sideways: these charts do not agree with each other.

The first two are properties of a single object. The third is a property of a set. You cannot look at one chart and know you are in a sideways market in the course's sense, any more than you can look at one person and know a committee is deadlocked. And this is not a quibble about wording — it changes what you do. Under the conventional definition, "is it sideways?" is answered by looking harder at the chart in front of you. Under this one, it is answered by opening the other charts.

It also explains something that otherwise looks like a contradiction. You can be in a sideways market while one of your charts looks strongly trending. The 4-hour can be making clean lower highs and lower lows — a textbook bear structure — while the weekly is still making higher lows. Nothing is wrong with either reading. They are both true, they are describing different groups of participants, and their disagreement is exactly the condition the course is naming. The 4-hour trader who says "this is clearly a downtrend" and the weekly investor who says "this is clearly still an uptrend" are both right, and both are trading a market that is, at the level of the whole, going nowhere.

One consequence to bank now: "the market is sideways" is an unfinished sentence. Sideways across which set of frames? Two frames that are one step apart disagreeing is an ordinary afternoon. Ten frames from daily to monthly disagreeing is a genuine regime. Same word, wildly different situations — which brings us to the arithmetic.

How much of the time should you expect to be in a trend?

That depends entirely on a number you choose rather than one the market gives you: how many frames you insist must agree. And the relationship is steeper than almost anyone expects.

Set up the simplest possible yardstick. Suppose each frame you follow reads either up or down, and — deliberately assuming nothing about markets — suppose each reading is an independent coin flip. Then a trend, defined as unanimity, requires all n frames to land the same way:

P(all n frames agree) = 2 × (½)ⁿ = 2¹⁻ⁿ

The factor of two is because there are two ways to be unanimous — all up or all down. Run it:

Now read that table correctly, because it is easy to read it wrongly and the wrong reading is nonsense. It is not a claim that trends almost never happen. It is a null hypothesis: the amount of unanimity you would get from charts that carried no information at all. Real markets clearly produce far more trending time than one day a year, and that is the point — the distance between 0.195% and what you actually observe is a measurement of how much trends persist. The model is there to be beaten, and the size of the gap is the finding.

What the table does say, unambiguously, is that the strictness of your definition, not the market, sets how often you are allowed to act. Move from three frames to five and you have quartered your opportunities before a single candle has printed. That is worth knowing because the strictness usually arrives by accident: somebody adds a fourth chart to be safe, then a fifth, and then wonders why nothing ever qualifies. Nothing qualifies because they made it not qualify.

A note if you have read Lesson 15: 25% and 6.25% appear there too, and they mean something different. There they came from (¼)^k — the chance of k consecutive higher-high-and-higher-low pairs on one chart, over time. Here they come from 2¹⁻ⁿ — the chance of n charts agreeing at one moment. Same digits, different machinery, and they do not combine.

Why can a bull phase never flip straight into a bear phase?

Because the frames are nested inside each other, so they cannot turn simultaneously — and if they cannot turn simultaneously, there is necessarily a stretch of time when some have turned and some have not. That stretch is the sideways phase, and it is compulsory.

The argument is short enough to check. A weekly candle is built from seven daily candles; a daily is built from six four-hour candles. The higher frame has no information the lower frames have not already delivered to it. So the sequence is forced: the fastest frame changes character first, then the next, then the next. A weekly structure cannot break before the daily structure that composes it has broken.

Which means a market that begins with every frame pointing up and ends with every frame pointing down must pass through states where they disagree. There is no path that skips them. Draw the three states and you cannot draw an arrow from the left box to the right box:

This is a statement about definitions, not about markets, and that is what makes it strong: no data can contradict it. It also disposes of a fantasy that costs beginners a lot of money. There is no clean flip to be caught. Anyone offering to call the exact top of a bull phase is offering something the structure of the problem forbids — at the moment of the top, most of the frames still read bullish, because they have not had time to register anything. The top is only ever a top in retrospect, and the retrospect has a minimum length.

How long a minimum? Use the identity from Lesson 17: a swing point marked with a setting of n bars cannot be confirmed until n further bars have closed, because you have to see that nothing exceeded it. The slowest frame in your set therefore sets the floor. On a weekly chart with a modest 2-bar setting, you need the pivot candle plus two before and two after — about five weekly candles, or 35 days, before the weekly is even allowed to have a new opinion. During all of that time, by construction, your frames disagree.

The 2-bar setting is a choice, and a stricter one lengthens every row proportionally. What does not change is that the floor exists and that it grows with the slowest frame you consult — so the investor who checks the monthly chart is signing up for a months-long fog every time the market turns.

The practical version: if you follow a weekly frame, then for roughly five weeks after a major top your frames will be in conflict, and no amount of staring will resolve it early. That period is not a failure of your analysis. It is the analysis working correctly and telling you it does not know yet.

Does a bear phase behave like a bull phase upside down?

No, and the clearest place to see it is the pullback. The course's description of a bear phase includes a detail it never applies to the bull case: bounces are short and end early. Price that in R and the two phases stop looking like mirror images.

Take the identity from Lesson 21. Buy a pullback at depth f of the last leg, put the stop at the origin of that leg, target the previous extreme, and the trade pays:

R:R = f ÷ (1 − f)     break-even = 1 − f

The size of the swing cancels out entirely, which is what makes this comparable across phases. Now put the two typical depths side by side:

Same trader, same rule, same discipline — and the deeper pullback pays 2.618 times as much as the shallow one, with 23.6 percentage points less win rate required to break even. If you learned to buy dips in a market that was giving you 0.618 pullbacks and you carry the habit into a phase that only gives you 0.382 bounces, nothing about your behaviour has changed and your expectancy has fallen off a cliff. You will experience that as "losing my edge". It is not; it is the phase paying differently for the identical action.

Those two depths are the classical reading, not constants of nature, and this is a conditional calculation: if a pullback stops at 0.382 rather than 0.618, then the arithmetic is as above. Measure the pullbacks on your own chart before assuming either number applies. What does not depend on the numbers is the shape of the conclusion: shallower bounces pay worse, and they pay worse quadratically rather than proportionally, because the depth shrinks the reward and grows the risk at the same time.

There is a second asymmetry, and this site has already documented it elsewhere so it only needs a pointer: losses and gains are not symmetric in account terms either. A 50% decline requires a 100% advance to undo, which is why a bear phase costs more than the mirror-image arithmetic suggests. The drawdown guide has the full table.

Which of your tools breaks in which phase?

Every one of them breaks somewhere, and the failures are predictable enough to tabulate. This is the practical payoff of knowing the phase: not that it tells you what to buy, but that it tells you which instrument on your dashboard is currently lying.

Read down the "fails when" column and the pattern is stark: trend tools manufacture signals in a range, and range tools sell you the top of a trend. Neither malfunction announces itself. Both produce perfectly ordinary-looking outputs; the moving averages really did cross, RSI really did print 78. The tool is not broken. It is being asked a question its assumptions do not cover.

Which is why the phase question is not preliminary work you do before the real analysis. It is the analysis. Lesson 20 puts a number on the cost of getting it wrong — running the range playbook in a trend and vice versa — and the number is large enough that it dominates almost everything else you might improve.

How do you tell a phase has actually changed?

By checking the frames rather than the candles, and by accepting a delay you cannot negotiate away. There is a workable sequence, and the honest version of it includes an outcome most methods leave out: "not yet".

1. Fix your set of frames and write it down. Three is a reasonable working number — a fast frame you enter on, a middle frame you plan on, and a slow frame that grants or withholds permission. Spacing them about four to six times apart keeps them from telling you the same thing twice. Write the three down before you look at price, because a set chosen after the fact will always agree with whatever you already believe.

2. Label each frame independently. On each one, ask only the two questions from Lesson 15: is the last high above the previous high, and is the last low above the previous low? Both yes is up, both no is down, anything else is neither. Do not let your reading of one frame contaminate the next; that is the entire value of using several.

3. Read the score, not the chart. Three ups is a bull phase. Three downs is a bear phase. Anything else is the sideways condition, and the correct output is "no phase yet" rather than a guess about which way it will resolve. This is the step people skip, because "I don't know" feels like a failure of analysis rather than a result of it.

4. Expect the change to start at the fast end and take a known minimum. When the fast frame flips first you have not seen a reversal, you have seen the first frame of one — and the earliest the slowest frame can confirm anything is the floor from the table above. If your slow frame is the weekly, put a mark 35 days out and stop asking until then.

5. Check volume at the boundary. The course is specific here: consolidation and accumulation run on low volume, and a break out of one that comes without a clear rise in traded volume is very likely a false break. Lesson 14 shows how to measure "a clear rise" rather than eyeball it.

When is this advice wrong?

In four places, and the first one undermines the headline number badly enough that it has to come first.

The frames are not independent, so 2¹⁻ⁿ is a floor and not an estimate. A weekly candle is literally built out of daily candles; when the daily turns, the weekly becomes more likely to turn. Treating the frames as independent coin flips understates agreement enormously, which is exactly why the ten-frame figure comes out absurd. Use the table for what it is good for — showing that your choice of n drives how often you may act, and that the effect is geometric — and do not use it to predict anything.

The phase labels are lagging by construction, so acting only on a confirmed phase means acting late. Everything above is built on structure, and structure needs swings, and swings need candles to close. If you insist on unanimity across slow frames you will be right about the phase and late to every move within it. That is a legitimate trade-off and some approaches accept it deliberately; it is not a free lunch, and anybody presenting it as one is not counting the cost.

"Bear phases have shallow bounces" is a tendency, not a rule, and yours may differ. The 0.382-versus-0.618 comparison is a conditional calculation dressed in conventional numbers. Two markets in the same nominal phase can pay very differently. Measure your own pullbacks over a few dozen swings before you let the table set your expectations.

On a long enough horizon, phase is a story about your holding period rather than about the market. A position held for months in a bull phase passes through many bear phases on the 4-hour chart, and none of them matter to it. Whenever you say "we are in a bear market", the sentence only carries information once you have named the frame — and if the frame is much faster or much slower than your holding period, the label is true and irrelevant at the same time. See Lesson 4 for how the holding period ends up choosing your frames for you.

Common mistakes

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between a bear market and a correction? Depth and structure, and the structural test is the more useful of the two. The popular definition is a threshold — a decline of more than 20% from the high is called a bear market, less than that a correction — but a threshold tells you nothing until it has already been crossed. The structural test asks instead whether the sequence has changed: in a correction inside a bull phase, price falls but the low still holds above the previous low, so the higher-high-and-higher-low sequence survives. In a bear phase it does not. That test can be applied while the move is happening rather than after, and it works identically on a 4-hour chart and a monthly one, which the percentage rule does not.

How long does a sideways market last? Longer than most people expect, and there is a floor you can calculate rather than guess. Because timeframes are nested, the slowest frame in your set cannot confirm a new structure until enough of its own candles have closed — with a 2-bar swing setting that is about five candles, so roughly 20 hours on the 4-hour chart, 5 days on the daily and about 35 days on the weekly. That is the minimum, not the expectation. The upper end is genuinely unpredictable, and any specific figure you see quoted depends on a definition and a frame set that the person quoting it has usually not stated.

Can different timeframes be in different phases at the same time? Yes, and it is the normal state of affairs rather than an anomaly. The 4-hour chart can be in a textbook bear phase while the weekly is still making higher lows, and neither reading is wrong — they describe different groups of participants with different horizons. In the course's framing, that disagreement is not a puzzle to resolve; it is the sideways condition. The practical consequence is that "what phase are we in?" is not answerable until you say which frames you mean, and the useful answer is a score across your chosen set rather than a single word.

Should I trade at all during a sideways phase? That is a question about which tools you own, not about whether the market is tradeable. A range is perfectly tradeable with range tools — the boundaries are defined, so the risk is defined — and it is hostile to trend tools, which will generate crossings and breakouts that go nowhere. The mistake is not trading a sideways market; it is trading it with the instruments you were using the week before. If your method needs a trend and the score says no phase yet, the honest options are to stand aside or to switch to a method built for boundaries, and the second one requires having practised it beforehand.

How do I know a new bull phase has started rather than a bounce? By the same two questions applied in order, and by refusing to answer early. A bounce inside a bear phase produces a higher high or a higher low, but not both, and not repeatedly. A new bull phase produces both, and then does it again. The arithmetic in Lesson 15 is worth revisiting here: one higher-high-and-higher-low pair is a 25% event on a neutral yardstick, so a single pair is the base rate rather than evidence. Combine that with the frame score — a bounce usually flips only the fastest frame, while a phase change eventually flips all of them — and the useful test becomes: has the score changed, or has one chart changed?

How these numbers were produced. Three pieces of arithmetic, each stated where it is used. First, P(all n frames agree) = 2¹⁻ⁿ, from treating each frame's direction as an independent fair coin — a deliberately neutral null, not a model of markets, and stated as such in the text; the frames are in fact nested and therefore strongly dependent, so the figure is a floor. Second, the minimum disagreement window follows from the swing-confirmation identity in Lesson 17: a swing point at setting n cannot be confirmed for n further bars, so five candles at a 2-bar setting gives about 35 days on a weekly chart; a different setting scales every row. Third, pullback pricing uses R:R = f/(1−f) and break-even = 1−f, the identity derived in Lesson 21, applied to the classical 0.382 and 0.618 depths as a conditional comparison rather than a measurement. All R figures are before fees, funding and slippage. The definitions of the three phases, the observation that structure on a higher timeframe is more durable, the description of bear-phase bounces as short and early-ending, the statement that a trend requires the timeframes to agree, and the note that consolidation runs on low volume and that breaks without rising volume are suspect, all follow the slide course this site learned them from. No figure for how often markets trend or range is quoted anywhere on this page, because every such figure depends on a definition and a frame set that we have not verified and that the sources rarely state. Sources: our own arithmetic, stated inline. Published 2 Sep 2026.