Breakout Equity Trader (Remote, Funded) — Omaha, NE

A breakout equity trader at Maverick enters US equities on confirmed breakouts from defined base structures — typically multi-week consolidations resolving in the direction of the prior trend. The strategy rewards patience (most setups fail screening before they trigger) and decisiveness (when a setup triggers, hesitation costs entry price). It is one of the more classic, well-documented equity strategies, and the discipline required to run it well is significant.

Omaha, NE: Omaha is home to Berkshire Hathaway, TD Ameritrade (now part of Charles Schwab), Mutual of Omaha, and a financial-services labor market dramatically larger than the metro's size suggests. Central Time alignment with US markets is clean, and the cost of living is among the lowest of any major US metro.

What you'll trade: US equities meeting liquidity and structure criteria — typically mid-cap and large-cap names with clean weekly base patterns. We avoid breakouts in the lowest-quality names where false breaks dominate. ETFs (sector and broad-market) for thematic breakout trades.

Risk framework: Breakout trading loses worst in choppy, range-bound markets where most setups fail. Maverick traders are sized small per individual trigger and rely on hit rate × win-loss ratio to deliver expectancy across hundreds of trades, not on any single position.

Why Maverick funds this role: Breakout trading has produced more career traders than almost any other equity strategy. Maverick funds it because the framework is well-understood and the risk is well-defined — the question is whether a given trader has the discipline to execute it through both the streaks and the slumps.

• Traders patient enough to wait for the actual trigger rather than anticipating it
• People who can cut a failed breakout the same session it fails, without second-guessing
• Candidates with chart-pattern fluency — the visual language matters here
• Traders who track their own data: how many of your setups trigger, how many work, average winner versus average loser