Stick Sandwich Candlestick Pattern: Rules, Trading and Tested Results

The stick sandwich candlestick pattern is a three-candle formation in which two outer sessions of the same color close at the same price, with a session of the opposite color between them. After a decline, that means a bearish candle, a bullish one that trades above its close, then another bearish one that settles where the first did. The two equal closes mark support, read as a sign that the decline may end.

This guide covers the definition, how to spot it, how traders use it, and what our test bench measured on 1,148 occurrences, from equities to crypto, each compared with random days on the same assets.

What is the stick sandwich candlestick pattern?

The name describes the picture: the candle in the middle is the filling, and the two outer ones are the bread. What matters is the close. When the market ends twice at the same level within three sessions, despite a rally in between, that level has been defended.

It comes from the Japanese candlestick tradition that Steve Nison brought to Western traders in Japanese Candlestick Charting Techniques (1991). It is less common than single-candle signals: our bench found one every 7,385 eligible trading sessions.

Bullish stick sandwich pattern

Identifying the setup

Our bench uses the following rule, written so a computer can apply it without judgment:

1. A downtrend first: the last close before it is at least one average true range (ATR) below the close 10 bars earlier, and in the lower half of the 40 previous closes.
2. A bearish first candle.
3. A bullish second candle that trades above where the first one ended.
4. A bearish third candle that ends at that same price, within a small tolerance.

The chart below is not drawn by hand. It is the median shape of the occurrences our bench detected, with the entry, stop and target we test.

Psychology behind the bullish reversal

On the first session, sellers push the market down. Next, buyers step in and lift it above that close, which shows that demand exists. On the third, sellers return and drive it back, but only to the same closing price. They cannot break it. Classic analysis reads this as a floor: twice, selling stopped at the same place.

That reading is plausible. Whether the floor actually holds is a question for data, answered in the reliability section.

Bearish stick sandwich pattern

Identifying it

It is the mirror image after an uptrend: the same three candles with colors reversed. The matching close marks resistance.

Psychology behind the bearish reversal

Twice, buying stalled at one mark. Our bench tests the bullish version only, so we have no statistics for this one.

Key components of the setup

First candle: the trend setter

It moves with the decline and sets the mark that the third must match.

Second candle: the counter-move

It goes the other way and trades beyond the first close. It is the attempt to reverse. Our rule, like TA-Lib, requires its whole range, low included, to stay above that close, which is stricter than an open above it; it finds 95% of the cases TA-Lib flags.

Third candle: the sandwich confirmation

It erases the counter-move and ends at the same mark as the first. The equal closes are the whole point: if the third one closes well under the first, the decline simply continues.

How big is a typical one?

The median one spans 4.06% of price from bottom to top, or 1.29 times the average true range of the asset: only slightly larger than an average session.

How to identify it on a chart

Market context and trend requirements

This setup needs a decline to reverse. Classic analysis gives the same shape in the middle of a range less weight; our bench only counts it after a decline.

Support and resistance levels

The formation creates its own floor at the shared close. Classic analysis gives it more weight on a zone already visible on the chart, such as a prior swing bottom or a round number. We have not measured that effect.

Volume analysis

Some classic descriptions ask for rising volume on the rally session. We split occurrences by activity above 1.5 times the 20-day average: the 2:1 target was hit 50.0% of the time for those and 38.0% for the rest, and the average trade made +0.53 R against +0.12 R: a gap in favor of heavy activity. This split is descriptive and not corrected for the number of tests.

How to trade the stick sandwich

Our bench simulates the same plan on every occurrence: a buy stop at the top of the three candles, valid for 20 bars, a stop loss at their bottom, and a target twice as far as the stop.

Entry strategies

A more aggressive entry buys at the end of the third session. We have not tested it, and it gives up the entry filter, which we have not measured on its own.

Setting stop-loss orders

The natural stop sits under the bottom of the three candles. If that bottom gives way, the floor has failed.

Profit taking and exit signals

Our bench sets the target at twice the risk. A target at three times the pattern height is another option; we have not tested it. Winning trades reached the 2:1 target in a median of 12 sessions, and stopped ones lasted a median of 5.

Comparison with other candlestick patterns

Stick sandwich vs. engulfing patterns

The bullish engulfing is a two-candle signal in which the latter body covers the former. It is far more common: 59,948 occurrences in our data, and 48,554 closed trades. Those trades reached the 2:1 target 36.9% of the time against 35.7% on random dates, rated No clear edge: its average result per trade is within the margin of error.

Stick sandwich vs. matching low

The matching low is the closest relative: two black candles that end at the same mark after a decline, without the candle in the middle. It reached the 2:1 target 36.9% of the time against 32.6% on random dates: no clear edge. The sandwich did better in our data, though comparing two setups side by side is not a formal test.

Stick sandwich vs. three white soldiers

The three white soldiers are three long white candles after a decline: a strong push rather than a defended floor. They reached the 2:1 target 34.4% of the time against 33.3% on random dates.

Stick sandwich vs. three black crows

The three black crows are their mirror image: three long black candles after a rally. They reached the 2:1 target 22.1% of the time against 26.0% on random dates.

Statistical reliability and performance

On US equities, the average result of the stick sandwich trades (+0.20 R against +0.05 R) was higher than on random dates, but the gap does not pass even a simple test (p = 0.43), let alone our correction for multiple testing. On other markets the evidence is as weak or absent. In the text, figures refer to daily charts unless stated otherwise.

How to read the table

Read the columns in pairs. On US shares, 55.7% of occurrences were up 10 sessions later, against 53.8% of random sessions on the same shares. The excess return over the rest of the market after 10 sessions is +0.05%, with a 95% confidence interval from −0.38% to +0.44%. Zero is inside the interval: on direction alone, there is no clear edge.

The trade shows a larger raw gap. Among the 289 entries, 40.5% reached the 2:1 target, against 34.8% for the same entry, stop and target distances replayed on random dates: an expectancy of +0.20 R per trade against +0.05 R, before costs. The gap does not pass even a simple test (p = 0.43), far from surviving our correction for the thousands of tests we run, so we do not count it as an edge. Our stock data also misses most delisted companies, a survivorship bias we have not sized.

Historical win rates in context

Across all markets, a 39.2% hit rate sounds weak, but with a 2:1 target the break-even point is about 33%. Fees and slippage come on top. On hourly crypto, price was up 10 bars later a little more often than at random (52.7% against 47.9%, while the average excess return is rated no clear edge), yet the 2:1 trade did worse than random dates (23.4% against 32.8%) and its expectancy stayed negative at −0.28 R: a better direction is not the same as a profitable trade.

Expected duration of the move

The move takes time to show: 51.7% of occurrences were up one session later (against 50.5% at random), 52.9% after 5 (52.6%), and 57.3% after 20 (54.9%). These horizon splits are descriptive.

Does the long-term context matter?

We split occurrences by the 200-day moving average. Under it, the 2:1 target was hit 42.4% of the time (+0.30 R); over it, 33.3% (−0.09 R). The setup did a little better when price was below its long-term average. This split is descriptive.

The method is published in our methodology.

Common mistakes to avoid

Trading against the primary trend

It only exists after a decline. During a rally, the same shape means something else.

Ignoring confirmation

Overlooking volume discrepancies

In our data, trades did better with heavy activity, but in a descriptive split that we did not test, so do not reject a setup on that basis alone.

Accepting a loose match

If the third session ends clearly under the first, it is not a sandwich.

Indicators to combine with it

Classic analysis sometimes adds an oversold RSI (under 30), a positive divergence, or a touch of the lower Bollinger band. We have not tested those filters. The one we did test, the 200-day moving average, went against a with-the-trend filter: setups below the average did a little better than those above it (a descriptive split, detailed under Does the long-term context matter?).

Case studies: real market examples

The gallery in the Real examples section shows real stick sandwiches, picked by our bench (best and worst results, textbook shapes, most recent, random draws), with their actual outcome. The first two case studies below are on daily crypto charts, the third on an hourly crypto chart. Crypto on the daily timeframe is a small sample (16 occurrences), so these are illustrations, not statistics.

Example 1: the target is missed by a hair

KP3R/USDT ended a down session at 114.25 on May 16, 2022, closed up at 124.46 the next session, then closed at 112.5 on May 18: a near match, not an exact one, since the third close sits 1.5% under the first. The buy stop at the top, 137.51, was triggered the next session, with a stop at 111.5 and a 2:1 target at 189.53. On May 20, price reached 188, just short of the target, then fell back, and the stop was hit on June 11. Ten sessions after the pattern, KP3R was still 18.8% above the third close.

Example 2: canceled before a deeper fall

CELO/USDT formed one from March 4 to 6, 2023: a down session that closed at 0.673, an up session that closed at 0.689, then a down session that closed at 0.672, with a top at 0.719 and a bottom at 0.650. On March 7 it fell to 0.625, under the bottom, before ever reaching the top, so the setup was canceled without an entry. Ten sessions later, CELO was 8.9% down. Here the buy stop did its job: it kept the trader out of a falling market.

Example 3: the target is reached

On the hourly chart of FIL/USDT, the candle of 00:00 UTC on November 16, 2020 closed down at 27.4638, the next one closed up at 27.6909, and the 02:00 candle closed at 27.4632: almost the same close as the first. The buy stop at the top, 27.7601, was triggered at 07:00, with a stop at the bottom, 27.1839, and a 2:1 target at 28.9125. At 21:00 price dipped to 27.1895, a hair above the stop, then at 04:00 on November 17, 21 hours after entry, it jumped to 29.20: the target was hit, for +2 R. Ten hours after the pattern, FIL was only 0.3% above the third close: the move came later.

Tools for automatic detection

The open-source TA-Lib library has a CDLSTICKSANDWICH function, and some charting platforms let you screen for candlestick patterns or use a TradingView script written by the community. Check the definition: the tolerance for "same close" and the prior-decline test differ from one tool to another, and so does what they find.

Frequently asked questions

Summary of key points

• After a downtrend: a bearish candle, a bullish one trading above its close, then another one closing at the same level.
• Only 27.5% of setups triggered the buy stop; 72.4% broke their bottom first.
• On US equities, entered trades reached the 2:1 target 40.5% of the time against 34.8% on random dates, for +0.20 R against +0.05 R per trade: a gap that does not survive our correction.
• On direction alone, 55.6% were up 10 sessions later against 53.8% for random sessions, an average excess return of 0.00% that is not statistically significant: no clear edge.

Trading involves risk of losses, and past results do not guarantee future results. If you trade this setup, wait for the buy stop, put the stop under the bottom before entry, and size it on that distance.

About the author and the data. Written by Amaury, founder of PatternsWizard, who is passionate about finance, quantitative trading and data analysis. He built the PatternsWizard test bench, which detects each setup with published rules on full market history: crypto, forex, US stocks, ETFs, indices and commodities. Trades and win rates are compared with random bars on the same assets, excess returns with the rest of the market, with error margins and a correction for multiple testing, and the whole pipeline is checked on random-walk prices, where nothing can be predicted. Statistics on this page were generated on November 5, 2026. The full methodology explains every step.