Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

86% edge hiding between 8:00–9:00am on $NQ. Read that again. One hour. 1-minute timeframe. 86% probability edge. Most traders are looking at the whole session. That is the mistake. Inside Intelligent Balance indicator, I can isolate a specific time range and see where probability is actually stacked. In this...

RHerman's profile picture

Herman Trading

10,638 subscribers

53,734 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

This is what a textbook A+ setup on NQ looks like. The direction was already defined before the trade appeared. Today, the London Probability Map showed a 73.5% probability for the more probable LOW. So I was not interested in longs - SHORTS ONLY. I only needed one clean SHORT confirmation: • Sweep of liquidity • Bearish iFVG • Entry aligned with the statistically more probable direction That is it. Historical data and probabilities define the direction. Price action gives the entry. Trade entry + directional edge = A+ setup. The attached video shows the full London session execution step by step. How much simpler would your trading become if you stopped guessing the direction first?
1:12

This is what a textbook A+ setup on NQ looks like. The direction was already defined before the trade appeared. Today, the London Probability Map showed a 73.5% probability for the more probable LOW. So I was not interested in longs - SHORTS ONLY. I only needed one clean SHORT confirmation: • Sweep of liquidity • Bearish iFVG • Entry aligned with the statistically more probable direction That is it. Historical data and probabilities define the direction. Price action gives the entry. Trade entry + directional edge = A+ setup. The attached video shows the full London session execution step by step. How much simpler would your trading become if you stopped guessing the direction first?

Herman Trading

17,352 views • 1 month ago

This is how traders donate money to the market. They see 69% SHORTS… And still try to find a reason to go LONG. In this example from the New York session on $NQ, Intelligent Balance showed the more probable side clearly: SHORTS 69% That is your job. Not to predict every candle. Not to catch every reversal. Not to prove you are smarter than price. Your job is to trade only in the direction where probability is stacked in your favour. If the more probable side is below price, I am not interested in longs. I wait. Short entry. Short confirmation. Short execution. iFVG, CISD, sweep, displacement - pick your model. But never flip the direction just because price tries to bait you. The market’s favourite trick is making the less probable side look obvious. That is exactly how traders get trapped. Direction first. Confirmation second. Execution third. 69% SHORTS means one thing: I am either short… or I am not trading. Would you still try to catch longs here?
1:25

This is how traders donate money to the market. They see 69% SHORTS… And still try to find a reason to go LONG. In this example from the New York session on $NQ, Intelligent Balance showed the more probable side clearly: SHORTS 69% That is your job. Not to predict every candle. Not to catch every reversal. Not to prove you are smarter than price. Your job is to trade only in the direction where probability is stacked in your favour. If the more probable side is below price, I am not interested in longs. I wait. Short entry. Short confirmation. Short execution. iFVG, CISD, sweep, displacement - pick your model. But never flip the direction just because price tries to bait you. The market’s favourite trick is making the less probable side look obvious. That is exactly how traders get trapped. Direction first. Confirmation second. Execution third. 69% SHORTS means one thing: I am either short… or I am not trading. Would you still try to catch longs here?

Herman Trading

17,344 views • 26 days ago

London Session today, both of my probability tools aligned: • Probability Map: 76.5% LONGS • Intelligent Balance: 72% LONGS That immediately simplified the entire session. I was not interested in predicting every candle. I was not looking for shorts. I was looking for one thing only: BULLISH signatures toward the statistically more probable side. Any bullish iFVG? Any FVG supporting continuation? Any willingness from price to expand higher? The moment price started confirming the bias, I was joining in. This is how I approach day trading: Probability gives me the direction. Price action gives me the entry. Entries do not need to be complicated when you already know which side of the market deserves your attention. Would your trading improve if you stopped trying to trade both directions?
0:57

London Session today, both of my probability tools aligned: • Probability Map: 76.5% LONGS • Intelligent Balance: 72% LONGS That immediately simplified the entire session. I was not interested in predicting every candle. I was not looking for shorts. I was looking for one thing only: BULLISH signatures toward the statistically more probable side. Any bullish iFVG? Any FVG supporting continuation? Any willingness from price to expand higher? The moment price started confirming the bias, I was joining in. This is how I approach day trading: Probability gives me the direction. Price action gives me the entry. Entries do not need to be complicated when you already know which side of the market deserves your attention. Would your trading improve if you stopped trying to trade both directions?

Herman Trading

14,624 views • 1 month ago

Most traders make trading too complicated. My mechanical approach is simple: -Wait for Intelligent Balance. -Identify the more probable side. -Trade ONLY in that direction. -Use iFVG as execution. Target fixed R. No setup toward the bias = no trade. Today’s New York session was a perfect example. Intelligent Balance showed 70% for SHORTS. That means I was NOT interested in longs. I did not need to predict every candle. I did not need to catch the top. I did not need to trade both directions. My job was simple: Wait for price to show bearish confirmation toward the more probable side. Once the iFVG appeared in the short direction, that became the mechanical entry. Bias came from Intelligent Balance. Execution came from iFVG. Risk handled the rest. This is why direction matters more than entry. A basic ICT concept becomes much easier when you already know which side you are allowed to trade. Would your trading improve if you stopped asking “long or short?” every 5 minutes and only traded toward the higher probability side?
1:54

Most traders make trading too complicated. My mechanical approach is simple: -Wait for Intelligent Balance. -Identify the more probable side. -Trade ONLY in that direction. -Use iFVG as execution. Target fixed R. No setup toward the bias = no trade. Today’s New York session was a perfect example. Intelligent Balance showed 70% for SHORTS. That means I was NOT interested in longs. I did not need to predict every candle. I did not need to catch the top. I did not need to trade both directions. My job was simple: Wait for price to show bearish confirmation toward the more probable side. Once the iFVG appeared in the short direction, that became the mechanical entry. Bias came from Intelligent Balance. Execution came from iFVG. Risk handled the rest. This is why direction matters more than entry. A basic ICT concept becomes much easier when you already know which side you are allowed to trade. Would your trading improve if you stopped asking “long or short?” every 5 minutes and only traded toward the higher probability side?

Herman Trading

34,472 views • 1 month ago

My trading rule is simple: ALWAYS trade toward the more probable side. Not sometimes. Not when I feel like it. Not only when the setup looks perfect. Always. That is why I use Intelligent Balance. The indicator tells me which side is more probable. If it shows LONGS, I only look for longs. If it shows SHORTS, I only look for shorts. A clean setup against the more probable side? Ignored. A perfect iFVG against the more probable side? Ignored. CISD against the more probable side? Ignored. Because my job is not to trade every setup. My job is to wait for price to give me an entry toward the side with higher probability. The indicator gives me the side. Price action gives me the entry. Discipline keeps me out of the wrong trades. ALWAYS toward the more probable side. That one rule removes most of the noise. Would you still take a “perfect” setup against the more probable side?
0:50

My trading rule is simple: ALWAYS trade toward the more probable side. Not sometimes. Not when I feel like it. Not only when the setup looks perfect. Always. That is why I use Intelligent Balance. The indicator tells me which side is more probable. If it shows LONGS, I only look for longs. If it shows SHORTS, I only look for shorts. A clean setup against the more probable side? Ignored. A perfect iFVG against the more probable side? Ignored. CISD against the more probable side? Ignored. Because my job is not to trade every setup. My job is to wait for price to give me an entry toward the side with higher probability. The indicator gives me the side. Price action gives me the entry. Discipline keeps me out of the wrong trades. ALWAYS toward the more probable side. That one rule removes most of the noise. Would you still take a “perfect” setup against the more probable side?

Herman Trading

22,826 views • 1 month ago

LIVE TRADE: NQ showed a 77% probability to sweep London’s High first today. Did we reach it? I don’t know. I already secured profits. Because most traders misunderstand what “more probable” actually means. A 77% probability does NOT mean: “Hold TP blindly until London High.” It means: my entire bias and trade direction is ONLY aligned with the statistically stronger side. That changes everything. I am not randomly longing and shorting inside noise. I am trading WITH the side that historically has the advantage. The target is optional. The directional edge is the real weapon. Would your trading improve if you stopped fighting the statistically stronger side? #NQ #ICT
2:24

LIVE TRADE: NQ showed a 77% probability to sweep London’s High first today. Did we reach it? I don’t know. I already secured profits. Because most traders misunderstand what “more probable” actually means. A 77% probability does NOT mean: “Hold TP blindly until London High.” It means: my entire bias and trade direction is ONLY aligned with the statistically stronger side. That changes everything. I am not randomly longing and shorting inside noise. I am trading WITH the side that historically has the advantage. The target is optional. The directional edge is the real weapon. Would your trading improve if you stopped fighting the statistically stronger side? #NQ #ICT

Herman Trading

14,801 views • 2 months ago

The best signal is sometimes NO signal. That is why I do not trade when Intelligent Balance shows less than 60%. Below 60% means one thing to me: NO CLEAR EDGE. And that is exactly where most traders destroy their account. They see a sweep. They see an iFVG. They see CISD. They convince themselves there is a trade. But without a strong more probable side, the setup has no real filter. For me: 60%+ = I have a side to focus on. Below 60% = I protect capital. Simple. Intelligent Balance is not only there to tell me where to trade. It is there to tell me when NOT to trade. Because forcing trades in a low-edge environment is not trading. It is gambling with extra steps. Would you skip a session if the indicator told you there is no clear edge?
0:41

The best signal is sometimes NO signal. That is why I do not trade when Intelligent Balance shows less than 60%. Below 60% means one thing to me: NO CLEAR EDGE. And that is exactly where most traders destroy their account. They see a sweep. They see an iFVG. They see CISD. They convince themselves there is a trade. But without a strong more probable side, the setup has no real filter. For me: 60%+ = I have a side to focus on. Below 60% = I protect capital. Simple. Intelligent Balance is not only there to tell me where to trade. It is there to tell me when NOT to trade. Because forcing trades in a low-edge environment is not trading. It is gambling with extra steps. Would you skip a session if the indicator told you there is no clear edge?

Herman Trading

18,993 views • 1 month ago

Most traders still think the edge is the entry. It’s not. Today both probability models aligned with the same objective BEFORE price even got there. London Probability Map: 73.5% probability to sweep the LOW first. Price delivered exactly there. New York Probability Map: 72.8% probability to sweep the LOW first. Another textbook A+ setup. Another delivery. Trade entry in both cases? Basic ICT iFVG execution in the direction of the more probable side. That’s the part most traders miss. The iFVG is not the edge. The probabilities are. When you already know where price is statistically more likely to go first… execution becomes calmer, cleaner and far less emotional. Would your trading change if you started every session already knowing where the odds were leaning first? #NQ #ICT
1:04

Most traders still think the edge is the entry. It’s not. Today both probability models aligned with the same objective BEFORE price even got there. London Probability Map: 73.5% probability to sweep the LOW first. Price delivered exactly there. New York Probability Map: 72.8% probability to sweep the LOW first. Another textbook A+ setup. Another delivery. Trade entry in both cases? Basic ICT iFVG execution in the direction of the more probable side. That’s the part most traders miss. The iFVG is not the edge. The probabilities are. When you already know where price is statistically more likely to go first… execution becomes calmer, cleaner and far less emotional. Would your trading change if you started every session already knowing where the odds were leaning first? #NQ #ICT

Herman Trading

14,145 views • 2 months ago

Yesterday, I MECHANICALLY backtested a simple London Session model: → iFVG trade entry → Only towards the more probable side → Fixed 2R target Today, we test the exact same concept on the NY Initial Balance 9:30–10:30 ET. Entire week. Monday to Friday. No cherry-picking. The rules stay simple: → Intelligent Balance identifies the more probable side → I ignore every setup in the opposite direction → I wait for an iFVG towards probability → Mechanical entry → Fixed 2R target No complicated execution model. No predicting every candle. No forcing trades. Just one simple question: Can a basic iFVG entry perform better when every trade is aligned with the statistically more probable side? Full Initial Balance weekly backtest in the video. Would you trade this model mechanically?
2:45

Yesterday, I MECHANICALLY backtested a simple London Session model: → iFVG trade entry → Only towards the more probable side → Fixed 2R target Today, we test the exact same concept on the NY Initial Balance 9:30–10:30 ET. Entire week. Monday to Friday. No cherry-picking. The rules stay simple: → Intelligent Balance identifies the more probable side → I ignore every setup in the opposite direction → I wait for an iFVG towards probability → Mechanical entry → Fixed 2R target No complicated execution model. No predicting every candle. No forcing trades. Just one simple question: Can a basic iFVG entry perform better when every trade is aligned with the statistically more probable side? Full Initial Balance weekly backtest in the video. Would you trade this model mechanically?

Herman Trading

29,822 views • 1 month ago

Today’s NQ ORB15 range (9:30–9:45) showed an 82% probability for LONGS. Price pushed directly into the level highlighted by the Intelligent Balance Probability Map… …and immediately reversed. No continuation. No extended move. But the level was respected almost perfectly. That matters. The job of the indicator is not to predict every tick after the target is reached. Its job is to identify the statistically more probable side and highlight the level the market is most likely to seek. Today, it did exactly that. Price reached the mapped level, reacted instantly, and showed that the market clearly “saw” it. Direction first. Target second. Execution only when the setup is there.
1:16

Today’s NQ ORB15 range (9:30–9:45) showed an 82% probability for LONGS. Price pushed directly into the level highlighted by the Intelligent Balance Probability Map… …and immediately reversed. No continuation. No extended move. But the level was respected almost perfectly. That matters. The job of the indicator is not to predict every tick after the target is reached. Its job is to identify the statistically more probable side and highlight the level the market is most likely to seek. Today, it did exactly that. Price reached the mapped level, reacted instantly, and showed that the market clearly “saw” it. Direction first. Target second. Execution only when the setup is there.

Herman Trading

18,517 views • 1 month ago

80% probabilities. +2R 🔥 ORB15 strikes again. Most traders enter 9:30 NY open completely blind. Intelligent Balance Probability Map [Herman] already showed where the odds were leaning during the 9:30–9:45 ORB15 window. Not predictions. Statistical imbalance. Wait for confirmation - 1min iFVG Execute in the more probable direction. Let probabilities do the heavy lifting. 9:30–9:45 might genuinely be one of the most engineered windows in futures trading when you understand the data behind it. ORB15 is becoming absolutely GOATED with probabilities. Would you trade differently if you already knew the higher probability direction before the open? 👇 #NQ #ICT
0:47

80% probabilities. +2R 🔥 ORB15 strikes again. Most traders enter 9:30 NY open completely blind. Intelligent Balance Probability Map [Herman] already showed where the odds were leaning during the 9:30–9:45 ORB15 window. Not predictions. Statistical imbalance. Wait for confirmation - 1min iFVG Execute in the more probable direction. Let probabilities do the heavy lifting. 9:30–9:45 might genuinely be one of the most engineered windows in futures trading when you understand the data behind it. ORB15 is becoming absolutely GOATED with probabilities. Would you trade differently if you already knew the higher probability direction before the open? 👇 #NQ #ICT

Herman Trading

20,852 views • 2 months ago

84% BEARISH BIAS - New York ORB15 $NQ Not after the move. BEFORE IT Today’s ORB15 (9:30–9:45 NY time) on NQ showed a massive bearish imbalance: 84% probability to the downside. So the plan was simple: wait for confirmation → iFVG entry → execute. Result? 2R This is why probabilities change everything. Most traders enter New York Session guessing direction. I enter already knowing where the odds are leaning. Trade with probabilities. Not predictions. #NQ #ICT
1:23

84% BEARISH BIAS - New York ORB15 $NQ Not after the move. BEFORE IT Today’s ORB15 (9:30–9:45 NY time) on NQ showed a massive bearish imbalance: 84% probability to the downside. So the plan was simple: wait for confirmation → iFVG entry → execute. Result? 2R This is why probabilities change everything. Most traders enter New York Session guessing direction. I enter already knowing where the odds are leaning. Trade with probabilities. Not predictions. #NQ #ICT

Herman Trading

18,161 views • 2 months ago

Every week I backtest the previous week’s ORB15 9:30–9:45. Not to predict with emotion. Not to cherry-pick winners. But to prove one rule: Trade ONLY toward the more probable side. Last week: Monday: delivered, but no valid trade Tuesday: delivered +2R Wednesday: delivered +2R Thursday: delivered +2R Friday: delivered +2R The entries were not complicated. iFVG. CISD. Basic ICT confirmation. The edge was not in the entry. The edge was knowing which direction NOT to trade. Direction first. Confirmation second. Execution third. How many more weekly backtests before traders stop calling probability “luck”?
3:06

Every week I backtest the previous week’s ORB15 9:30–9:45. Not to predict with emotion. Not to cherry-pick winners. But to prove one rule: Trade ONLY toward the more probable side. Last week: Monday: delivered, but no valid trade Tuesday: delivered +2R Wednesday: delivered +2R Thursday: delivered +2R Friday: delivered +2R The entries were not complicated. iFVG. CISD. Basic ICT confirmation. The edge was not in the entry. The edge was knowing which direction NOT to trade. Direction first. Confirmation second. Execution third. How many more weekly backtests before traders stop calling probability “luck”?

Herman Trading

41,232 views • 1 month ago

LONG or SHORT? Because right now… the odds are screaming one direction. 8:00am New York Session. Both indicators agree: • New York Probability Map • Intelligent Balance 75.8%+ probability of sweeping London’s Low first. So while most traders are about to randomly click buy or sell… I already know which side has the statistical advantage. That doesn’t guarantee the trade. But it changes the entire way you approach execution. Trading becomes calmer. Cleaner. More intentional. Because when probabilities align BEFORE New York opens… you stop guessing. You start trading with odds on your side. So be honest: Are you longing into 75.8% downside probability… or trading with the statistics?
0:31

LONG or SHORT? Because right now… the odds are screaming one direction. 8:00am New York Session. Both indicators agree: • New York Probability Map • Intelligent Balance 75.8%+ probability of sweeping London’s Low first. So while most traders are about to randomly click buy or sell… I already know which side has the statistical advantage. That doesn’t guarantee the trade. But it changes the entire way you approach execution. Trading becomes calmer. Cleaner. More intentional. Because when probabilities align BEFORE New York opens… you stop guessing. You start trading with odds on your side. So be honest: Are you longing into 75.8% downside probability… or trading with the statistics?

Herman Trading

17,870 views • 2 months ago

A+ NQ setup has exactly three parts. 1. Statistical bias: Probability Map shows 75%+ to one side. Not an opinion. Backtested across 10 years of NQ session data. That number narrows the playing field before price moves an inch. 2. The sweep: Liquidity is resting in the opposite direction. When price grabs it, that is not a fake-out. That is the fuel for the real move. You were expecting it. You were watching for it. 3. The entry model: After the sweep, the structure confirms. iFVG / CISD. A defined ICT concept with clear invalidation. Not a hope, not a gut feel. A model with a precise entry and a reason to be there. Probability tells you where. The sweep tells you when. The entry model tells you how. Remove any one of the three and you do not have an edge. You have a trade. How many of these boxes do you tick before you pull the trigger?
1:01

A+ NQ setup has exactly three parts. 1. Statistical bias: Probability Map shows 75%+ to one side. Not an opinion. Backtested across 10 years of NQ session data. That number narrows the playing field before price moves an inch. 2. The sweep: Liquidity is resting in the opposite direction. When price grabs it, that is not a fake-out. That is the fuel for the real move. You were expecting it. You were watching for it. 3. The entry model: After the sweep, the structure confirms. iFVG / CISD. A defined ICT concept with clear invalidation. Not a hope, not a gut feel. A model with a precise entry and a reason to be there. Probability tells you where. The sweep tells you when. The entry model tells you how. Remove any one of the three and you do not have an edge. You have a trade. How many of these boxes do you tick before you pull the trigger?

Herman Trading

20,079 views • 2 months ago

91% SHORTS in London. Price delivered beautifully. New York 8-9 almost delivered too - TP missed by only a few ticks. ORB15? No entry. And that is exactly why probability beats prediction. Most traders want every session to give them a trade. I don’t. London gave the clean short. NY 8-9 gave the right idea, just missed TP by a few ticks. ORB15 gave no valid execution - so there was nothing to force. This is the difference between trading with odds… and chasing candles. Some sessions deliver. Some sessions miss by a few ticks. Some sessions give no trade at all. But the job stays the same: Direction first. Confirmation second. Execution third. Another day with the odds on our side. Would you have forced ORB15… or accepted the no trade?
1:50

91% SHORTS in London. Price delivered beautifully. New York 8-9 almost delivered too - TP missed by only a few ticks. ORB15? No entry. And that is exactly why probability beats prediction. Most traders want every session to give them a trade. I don’t. London gave the clean short. NY 8-9 gave the right idea, just missed TP by a few ticks. ORB15 gave no valid execution - so there was nothing to force. This is the difference between trading with odds… and chasing candles. Some sessions deliver. Some sessions miss by a few ticks. Some sessions give no trade at all. But the job stays the same: Direction first. Confirmation second. Execution third. Another day with the odds on our side. Would you have forced ORB15… or accepted the no trade?

Herman Trading

28,311 views • 1 month ago

$BTC Weekly Update Most people are busy predicting 50k or 80k. I'm looking at what the chart is actually telling me. I've broken the market down into a simple range: 60k–67k. As long as we're inside this range, treat it as a range-bound market and trade it accordingly. The interesting part? Weekly closes continue to defend the 60k region. To me, that doesn't look like a market eager to go lower. In fact, if 60k continues to hold and we see a deviation around that level, I believe the higher timeframe target becomes 73-74k over the coming weeks. The invalidation is simple: A strong breakdown below 60k. Until that happens, I'm not interested in random predictions. Trade the range. Respect the levels. Let the market prove you wrong. I've explained the complete thought process in the video.
6:36

$BTC Weekly Update Most people are busy predicting 50k or 80k. I'm looking at what the chart is actually telling me. I've broken the market down into a simple range: 60k–67k. As long as we're inside this range, treat it as a range-bound market and trade it accordingly. The interesting part? Weekly closes continue to defend the 60k region. To me, that doesn't look like a market eager to go lower. In fact, if 60k continues to hold and we see a deviation around that level, I believe the higher timeframe target becomes 73-74k over the coming weeks. The invalidation is simple: A strong breakdown below 60k. Until that happens, I'm not interested in random predictions. Trade the range. Respect the levels. Let the market prove you wrong. I've explained the complete thought process in the video.

Digital Nomad Woman

25,757 views • 1 month ago

This bot made +$21,000 in 3 weeks trading on weather markets! Account: 7,424 trades. +$1,000/day. Strategy: arbitrage on the most probable outcomes. Example: market Highest temperature in Dallas on April 12: > buys 74°F or higher Yes at 64.6¢ for $2,187 > buys 72-73°F Yes at 21.4¢ for $738 > buys 70-71°F Yes at 9.4¢ for $282 The lower the probability, the smaller the position size. Result: the second bet 72-73°F Yes hits and returns +$2,715. Net profit: $2,715 - $2,187 - $282 = +$246 From one cycle! Risks: > if a very low-probability outcome hits (e.g., 1¢) that the bot didn’t bet on > if the bot overallocates to high-probability outcomes and underallocates to low-probability ones, and the low-probability outcome wins To reduce such mistakes, the bot uses the Kelly Criterion. Capital allocation per market is proportional to outcome probability and edge over the market. Simply: > higher probability -> larger bet > lower probability -> smaller bet The expected value (EV) of this strategy is positive. This does not guarantee profit in a single cycle - only over many repetitions. I described this logic in more detail in the article. Save it.
0:28

This bot made +$21,000 in 3 weeks trading on weather markets! Account: 7,424 trades. +$1,000/day. Strategy: arbitrage on the most probable outcomes. Example: market Highest temperature in Dallas on April 12: > buys 74°F or higher Yes at 64.6¢ for $2,187 > buys 72-73°F Yes at 21.4¢ for $738 > buys 70-71°F Yes at 9.4¢ for $282 The lower the probability, the smaller the position size. Result: the second bet 72-73°F Yes hits and returns +$2,715. Net profit: $2,715 - $2,187 - $282 = +$246 From one cycle! Risks: > if a very low-probability outcome hits (e.g., 1¢) that the bot didn’t bet on > if the bot overallocates to high-probability outcomes and underallocates to low-probability ones, and the low-probability outcome wins To reduce such mistakes, the bot uses the Kelly Criterion. Capital allocation per market is proportional to outcome probability and edge over the market. Simply: > higher probability -> larger bet > lower probability -> smaller bet The expected value (EV) of this strategy is positive. This does not guarantee profit in a single cycle - only over many repetitions. I described this logic in more detail in the article. Save it.

me_cool_off

15,828 views • 2 months ago

$1,331,821 IN 30 DAYS. 3 BOTS. 48,061 TRADES. ONE FORMULA. They don't predict price. They measure what state the market is in right now. Markov chains, transition matrix, each cell - the probability of transitioning from state A to state B. The matrix diagonal - the probability that the market stays where it is. Entry only when the diagonal is above 0.87. Two conditions: the gap between model and market is greater than 5%, and the state is stable. Both must be true. One function, runs every minute. Bot 1 - Bonereaper. BTC and ETH, hourly windows, entry at 83-97¢. The market agrees with the direction but underestimates the confidence. 4-19% on every resolution. Low variance. Bot 2 - 0xe1D6. Dual mode, directional scalps at 64-83¢ deliver 20-54% per trade. In parallel, locks at 99.5-99.8¢. Best trade: entry at 64.7¢, return 54.6%. Bot 3 - 0xB27BC. Five assets: BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP. Five-minute windows. One trade every 1.7 minutes. Variance 55% lower at the same expected return. The real edge - 3:00 AM. People are asleep. The market posts lazy, stale prices. The gap between model and market is maximal when no one is watching. 0.034% per trade sounds like nothing. Over 16,000 trades that's *240. The law of large numbers turns noise into an exponent. Kelly criterion f* ≈ 0.71 - aggressive enough to grow, conservative enough not to go to zero. As long as people misprice short windows - the edge exists. You don't need to predict. You need to measure. The market rewards those who understand probability. The rest just provide liquidity.
0:55

$1,331,821 IN 30 DAYS. 3 BOTS. 48,061 TRADES. ONE FORMULA. They don't predict price. They measure what state the market is in right now. Markov chains, transition matrix, each cell - the probability of transitioning from state A to state B. The matrix diagonal - the probability that the market stays where it is. Entry only when the diagonal is above 0.87. Two conditions: the gap between model and market is greater than 5%, and the state is stable. Both must be true. One function, runs every minute. Bot 1 - Bonereaper. BTC and ETH, hourly windows, entry at 83-97¢. The market agrees with the direction but underestimates the confidence. 4-19% on every resolution. Low variance. Bot 2 - 0xe1D6. Dual mode, directional scalps at 64-83¢ deliver 20-54% per trade. In parallel, locks at 99.5-99.8¢. Best trade: entry at 64.7¢, return 54.6%. Bot 3 - 0xB27BC. Five assets: BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP. Five-minute windows. One trade every 1.7 minutes. Variance 55% lower at the same expected return. The real edge - 3:00 AM. People are asleep. The market posts lazy, stale prices. The gap between model and market is maximal when no one is watching. 0.034% per trade sounds like nothing. Over 16,000 trades that's *240. The law of large numbers turns noise into an exponent. Kelly criterion f* ≈ 0.71 - aggressive enough to grow, conservative enough not to go to zero. As long as people misprice short windows - the edge exists. You don't need to predict. You need to measure. The market rewards those who understand probability. The rest just provide liquidity.

zostaff

61,629 views • 3 months ago

a citadel quant told me something that broke my entire trading framework "we don't predict markets. we model the state machine" he explained markov chains in 90 seconds the market is never random - it always exists in one of three states trending up, trending down, ranging - each has a fixed probability of shifting to another build the transition matrix from real price data: > trending up -> 68% stays trending, 21% flips to range, 11% reverses > ranging -> 54% stays range, 28% breaks up, 18% breaks down > trending down -> 61% stays falling, 24% flips to range, 15% reverses now you're not guessing, you're playing probability identify current state, enter with the 68% edge, size with kelly criterion based on that probability the formula is public - markov published it in 1906 hedge funds use it, the math costs nothing what costs you is asking the wrong question "where is price going?" is random "what state am I in right now?" has an answer transition matrix built from 10 years of data is your edge Bookmark it not a signal, not an indicator - just conditional probability that compounds every single trade
0:40

a citadel quant told me something that broke my entire trading framework "we don't predict markets. we model the state machine" he explained markov chains in 90 seconds the market is never random - it always exists in one of three states trending up, trending down, ranging - each has a fixed probability of shifting to another build the transition matrix from real price data: > trending up -> 68% stays trending, 21% flips to range, 11% reverses > ranging -> 54% stays range, 28% breaks up, 18% breaks down > trending down -> 61% stays falling, 24% flips to range, 15% reverses now you're not guessing, you're playing probability identify current state, enter with the 68% edge, size with kelly criterion based on that probability the formula is public - markov published it in 1906 hedge funds use it, the math costs nothing what costs you is asking the wrong question "where is price going?" is random "what state am I in right now?" has an answer transition matrix built from 10 years of data is your edge Bookmark it not a signal, not an indicator - just conditional probability that compounds every single trade

Livsun

266,884 views • 2 months ago