Direct answer: what a worked example of Hanging Man looks like
A Hanging Man is a single-candle chart pattern defined by candle shape: it has a small real body located near the bottom of the candle’s overall range, plus a relatively long lower wick. A “worked example” means you take a specific set of open, high, low, close (OHLC) numbers, measure body and wick lengths using stated assumptions, and confirm whether the candle matches the shape rules.
Below is a worked, fully numeric example. It is informational only: it shows how to verify the candle’s geometry, not how to predict future prices.
Mechanism or definition: how you verify the candle shape
Start with one candle and its OHLC values on a chosen timeframe.
Define these measurements (all based on raw price levels you assume for the example):
- Body size = |Close − Open|.
- Lower wick = min(Open, Close) − Low. (This is the distance from the body bottom down to the low.)
- Upper wick = High − max(Open, Close).
A common practical description for Hanging Man is:
- Body is small relative to the candle’s full height.
- Body bottom is close to the low, meaning the lower wick is long.
Because pattern “rules” can vary in exact ratios, this worked example uses explicit, testable thresholds:
- Long lower wick: lower wick ≥ 2 × body size.
- Small body: body size ≤ 0.3 × (High − Low).
- Lower wick dominates: lower wick ≥ upper wick (to keep it shape-focused).
These thresholds are assumptions for the example so you can independently check the arithmetic.
Evidence or example: one complete numeric verification
Assume a candle has the following OHLC values (price units are arbitrary):
- Open = 100.00
- High = 105.00
- Low = 96.00
- Close = 100.40
Now measure:
- Body size = |100.40 − 100.00| = 0.40.
- Candle range = High − Low = 105.00 − 96.00 = 9.00.
- Lower wick = min(Open, Close) − Low = min(100.00, 100.40) − 96.00 = 4.00.
- Upper wick = High − max(Open, Close) = 105.00 − max(100.00, 100.40) = 4.60.
Check the assumed Hanging Man thresholds:
- Long lower wick condition: lower wick ≥ 2 × body → 4.00 ≥ 2 × 0.40 = 0.80. Pass.
- Small body condition: body ≤ 0.3 × range → 0.40 ≤ 0.3 × 9.00 = 2.70. Pass.
However, for the “shape focus” condition lower wick ≥ upper wick → 4.00 ≥ 4.60 is Fail.
So, under these specific assumptions, you would conclude: the candle matches the small body + long lower wick idea, but it does not meet the extra constraint that the lower wick is longer than the upper wick.
This demonstrates a key point: a worked example is only as consistent as the rule set you choose. Different charting communities may use different ratio filters.
Limitations and risks: what this example does not prove
- Candle geometry is not a forecast. The pattern describes shape at one point in time; it does not guarantee any future movement.
- Rule differences change classification. As shown above, adding or removing a “lower wick dominates upper wick” constraint changes the result.
- Context affects interpretation. Descriptions of Hanging Man often rely on what came before (e.g., whether price had been moving down or up). Without context, a candle shape alone is ambiguous.
- Data and charting conventions vary. OHLC values depend on the timeframe, and implementations may differ in how they compute candle data or handle gaps.
Material failure mode: you could mis-measure wick/body due to inconsistent definitions, leading to incorrect pattern identification even when the arithmetic looks plausible.
Verification and next question: how to independently check
To verify for your own chart, repeat the same steps:
- Pick the exact timeframe and record that candle’s OHLC.
- Compute body size and wick sizes using the definitions given.
- Apply a clearly stated rule set (like the thresholds used here) and note whether each condition passes.
- Compare the classification under at least two reasonable rule variants (for example, a version without the “lower wick ≥ upper wick” constraint) to see how sensitive the result is.