NVIDIA's Rebound Recovered Just 12% of Its Drop — Here's the Math

NVIDIA's rebound to roughly $160 recovered only about 12% of the selloff that preceded it — $2 back against a $17 decline. That's the core observation in a new chart analysis published on TradingView by the analyst QuantitativeQ, focused on NVDA's 15-minute price action on November 10 and 11, including the November 11 evening drop and the subsequent rebound.

The numbers are simple, and that's the point. Price sat near $175 before the selloff, fell to the high $150s, and bounced to around $160. Using rounded levels, a move from $175 down to $158 cost $17. The rebound from $158 to $160 clawed back $2. Run the division and you get roughly 12% — a bounce that looks energetic in isolation but appears modest once you restore the drop to the picture.

"A bounce looks bigger when you only measure it from the low," QuantitativeQ wrote. "Put the drop back into the picture."

What's the actual method?

The analyst lays out a three-point replay procedure any trader can replicate:

• Point A: Mark the last completed close before the drop — near $175 in this instance.
• Point B: Mark the lowest completed close since the break — near $158.
• Point C: At each rebound checkpoint, mark the latest completed close — near $160 here.

The recovery ratio is (C − B) ÷ (A − B). In this case, $2 divided by $17, or about 12%.

Two consistency rules matter. Keep all three points on the same chart, and use the same kind of price for each — completed closes, not intrabar extremes or separate overnight quotes. If a new low closes below B, you update B and measure again from the fresh floor.

When is a break actually repaired?

The percentage gives the bounce a scale, but the analyst is explicit that the ratio alone doesn't declare the damage undone. The test is the level itself. If price closes back through A — the pre-drop close near $175 — and the next pullback holds above it on a completed candle, the area has been reclaimed on that test.

If closes stay below A, you can quantify how much price recovered without calling the break repaired. That distinction is the discipline behind the whole exercise: describing recovery honestly versus declaring a reversal.

"In the window shown here, the bounce stayed far below the area it lost," QuantitativeQ wrote. "That's why I mark the starting point before I replay the move."

The chart setup, verbatim

The analysis ran on NASDAQ NVDA data, 15-minute candles, extended hours on, in the America/Los_Angeles timezone, displaying November 10 and 11 with the evening drop and rebound visible. The author flags the displayed $175, $158 and $160 levels as rounded teaching landmarks — anyone reproducing the work should place drawings on the actual corresponding bar closes in their native chart. The separate purple overnight quote should not be labeled as a bar close.

What does this change for practitioners?

For anyone trading bounces, the takeaway is procedural, not predictive. Anchoring your denominator at the pre-break close — not the low — converts a visually impressive rebound into an honest fraction of damage recovered. In NVDA's case this month, that fraction was roughly one-eighth. Until price closes back above the $175 area and holds it, the rebound is a partial recovery within a breakdown, not a repair of it.