Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

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?show more

Herman Trading

9,803 subscribers

20,079 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche 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?

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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

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 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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?

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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?

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Why does price reverse the second you enter? Because you're reacting to micro structure shifts while institutions are still executing the macro trend. Every market operates in 2 ranges simultaneously: 1) External range (macro structure) 2) Internal range (micro structure) Every market is always operating within BOTH ranges simultaneously. 1) External Ranges How do you identify it? Look at the SIZE of the pullbacks. If one pullback is twice the size of the others—that's your external break of structure. What does it tell you? Your overall bias. If the external range is bearish, you should be looking for sells. If it's bullish, you should be looking for buys. The external range doesn't tell you when NOT to trade—it tells you WHAT DIRECTION to trade. 2) Internal Ranges How do you identify it? Look for small breaks of structure that happen WITHIN your external range. These are the tiny pullbacks that barely move price compared to the major swings. What does it tell you? Short-term trading opportunities. You CAN trade internal breaks, but manage your expectations. These aren't trend reversals—they're temporary counter-moves that create pullbacks before price continues with the external trend. The internal range tells you when there's a short-term trade setup, but NOT to expect a full reversal. In the video below, I've explained what happens when you trade internal breaks without identifying the external ranges (and how to solve this): — This is just one concept from my complete trading framework. We also cover how to identify when external structure is actually shifting, the 3 timeframes every trader needs to understand and how to identify discount zones for entry points. Just comment "RANGES" and the full breakdown will automatically be DM'd to you in the next few minutes.

Why does price reverse the second you enter? Because you're reacting to micro structure shifts while institutions are still executing the macro trend. Every market operates in 2 ranges simultaneously: 1) External range (macro structure) 2) Internal range (micro structure) Every market is always operating within BOTH ranges simultaneously. 1) External Ranges How do you identify it? Look at the SIZE of the pullbacks. If one pullback is twice the size of the others—that's your external break of structure. What does it tell you? Your overall bias. If the external range is bearish, you should be looking for sells. If it's bullish, you should be looking for buys. The external range doesn't tell you when NOT to trade—it tells you WHAT DIRECTION to trade. 2) Internal Ranges How do you identify it? Look for small breaks of structure that happen WITHIN your external range. These are the tiny pullbacks that barely move price compared to the major swings. What does it tell you? Short-term trading opportunities. You CAN trade internal breaks, but manage your expectations. These aren't trend reversals—they're temporary counter-moves that create pullbacks before price continues with the external trend. The internal range tells you when there's a short-term trade setup, but NOT to expect a full reversal. In the video below, I've explained what happens when you trade internal breaks without identifying the external ranges (and how to solve this): — This is just one concept from my complete trading framework. We also cover how to identify when external structure is actually shifting, the 3 timeframes every trader needs to understand and how to identify discount zones for entry points. Just comment "RANGES" and the full breakdown will automatically be DM'd to you in the next few minutes.

The Trading Geek (Brad Goh)

21,361 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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

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 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

CITADEL QUANTS HIDE THE GAME BEHIND A FORMULA WITH TEN TERMS, PREDICTION MARKETS RUN ON EXACTLY ONE The secret is one line. Edge = P(model) − P(market) That Z-field monster on screen is a stack of simple signals wearing a costume. A prediction market strips all of it down to one number, the crowd's guess at a probability. In plain words. If you can turn fresh news into a probability before the crowd reprices, the gap between your number and their price is the whole edge. That is why the game is not IQ, it is speed to a number. An AI that reads live news does in ninety seconds what the tab takes hours to price in. I broke down the four exact prompts that turn Grok into a probability desk, the sizing rules and the ten minute daily routine in the article. Still bets, not a salary, so size like it & the full playbook is in the article. Read it ↓

CITADEL QUANTS HIDE THE GAME BEHIND A FORMULA WITH TEN TERMS, PREDICTION MARKETS RUN ON EXACTLY ONE The secret is one line. Edge = P(model) − P(market) That Z-field monster on screen is a stack of simple signals wearing a costume. A prediction market strips all of it down to one number, the crowd's guess at a probability. In plain words. If you can turn fresh news into a probability before the crowd reprices, the gap between your number and their price is the whole edge. That is why the game is not IQ, it is speed to a number. An AI that reads live news does in ninety seconds what the tab takes hours to price in. I broke down the four exact prompts that turn Grok into a probability desk, the sizing rules and the ten minute daily routine in the article. Still bets, not a salary, so size like it & the full playbook is in the article. Read it ↓

slash1s

15,977 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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?

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

23,771 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨 Pep Guardiola on racism in football: "I said the week before. Not for where you were born or for the colour of your skin make us better or worse. There is a lot of work still to do. It is in the society, it is not [just] in football. Racism is everywhere. You pretend that racism is just for the colour of the skin? How you behave is racism. It's how you pretend you are better than the other one just for many reasons." How to improve the situation?: "The schools. Pay a lot to the teachers. That's how you deal with it. In the schools, not in football. The teachers and the doctors have to be the best, the most important people in society, by far. Not the managers."

🚨 Pep Guardiola on racism in football: "I said the week before. Not for where you were born or for the colour of your skin make us better or worse. There is a lot of work still to do. It is in the society, it is not [just] in football. Racism is everywhere. You pretend that racism is just for the colour of the skin? How you behave is racism. It's how you pretend you are better than the other one just for many reasons." How to improve the situation?: "The schools. Pay a lot to the teachers. That's how you deal with it. In the schools, not in football. The teachers and the doctors have to be the best, the most important people in society, by far. Not the managers."

CaughtOffside

39,038 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Chris Camillo explains his emergency trade investing strategy “As an investor, you should have 20 scenarios. Each of those scenarios maybe has a 5% likelihood of happening in your lifetime and you know exactly what you’re going to do if and when that scenario plays out” “The market is so inefficient when it comes to any low probability scenario” “When one of them happens, you want to be able to move in real time. The difference between moving in a matter of minutes and moving in a matter of hours might be the biggest trade of your entire life” “If you could move in minutes with high conviction, with leverage, when one of those low probability things actually starts to materialize, you will make the biggest trade of your life” “That’s the only trade you ever need to make to be a top 1% or even 1/10th of 1% investor” “You just need to mentally prepare because you will not pull the trigger on that trade unless you’ve been thinking about it for years” “If you’ve been thinking about it for years, you will pull that damn trigger so hard because you have been waiting for it to happen”

Chris Camillo explains his emergency trade investing strategy “As an investor, you should have 20 scenarios. Each of those scenarios maybe has a 5% likelihood of happening in your lifetime and you know exactly what you’re going to do if and when that scenario plays out” “The market is so inefficient when it comes to any low probability scenario” “When one of them happens, you want to be able to move in real time. The difference between moving in a matter of minutes and moving in a matter of hours might be the biggest trade of your entire life” “If you could move in minutes with high conviction, with leverage, when one of those low probability things actually starts to materialize, you will make the biggest trade of your life” “That’s the only trade you ever need to make to be a top 1% or even 1/10th of 1% investor” “You just need to mentally prepare because you will not pull the trigger on that trade unless you’ve been thinking about it for years” “If you’ve been thinking about it for years, you will pull that damn trigger so hard because you have been waiting for it to happen”

Jack

38,631 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I tested my Intelligent Balance Indicator during the slowest session of the day - ASIA. The result surprised me. You asked if it works during Asia as well as it does during New York. So I tested it. Even during slower sessions like Asia, the indicator can still identify the more probable direction of the price move with impressive accuracy. That is the edge. You do not need to predict every candle. You do not need to chase random moves. Let the indicator show you the more probable direction. Then use your favorite trade entry model towards that side. Same indicator. Different session. Same probability-driven approach. Watch the video and judge for yourself. Trade with probabilities. Not predictions. Should I test London next?

I tested my Intelligent Balance Indicator during the slowest session of the day - ASIA. The result surprised me. You asked if it works during Asia as well as it does during New York. So I tested it. Even during slower sessions like Asia, the indicator can still identify the more probable direction of the price move with impressive accuracy. That is the edge. You do not need to predict every candle. You do not need to chase random moves. Let the indicator show you the more probable direction. Then use your favorite trade entry model towards that side. Same indicator. Different session. Same probability-driven approach. Watch the video and judge for yourself. Trade with probabilities. Not predictions. Should I test London next?

Herman Trading

14,652 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

After 1,000+ trades, this is the only setup that consistently works in any market condition. It's called liquidity sweep reversal—and it's the highest probability trading strategy I know. Before I show you what it is, here are the two things most traders get wrong with it: 1) They enter too early and get stopped out on the second sweep. 2) They try to predict the LAST sweep with certainty This is a sure-fire way to burn your money. Here's what to do instead: Step 1: Identify market control Look at structure. Higher highs and higher lows? Buyers are in control. We're only trading from demand zones. Step 2: Mark your liquidity zones Find equal lows. When retail sees a "double bottom," they go long because textbooks tell them to. Their stop losses sit right below those lows. Available liquidity for institutions to sweep. Step 3: Wait for the sweep Price drops, sweeps those stops, liquidates retail traders, then creates a sharp V-shaped reaction. This sweep breaks structure. Zoom into 1-hour timeframe - price was making lower highs and lows. After the sweep? Higher highs and higher lows. That sweep zone becomes your institutional demand zone. Step 4: Enter on mitigation Wait for price to pull back to the liquidity zone. Enter there. Stop below the zone. Target 2-3R. Remember: You'll NEVER predict with 100% certainty when it's the LAST liquidity sweep. Sometimes price sweeps 2-3 times before the real move. But that's trading—we trade probabilities, not certainties. Also, keep in mind: If you can't spot the liquidity, you ARE the liquidity. — This is just a breakdown of one of the trading strategies we covered in our 2-hour long cryptocurrency trading course. I also discussed the trend pullback strategy, how to trade breakout retests without getting stopped out on fake moves, and why understanding liquidity is the only way to avoid becoming exit liquidity. Just comment "COURSE" and I'll DM it to you immediately so you can watch it.

After 1,000+ trades, this is the only setup that consistently works in any market condition. It's called liquidity sweep reversal—and it's the highest probability trading strategy I know. Before I show you what it is, here are the two things most traders get wrong with it: 1) They enter too early and get stopped out on the second sweep. 2) They try to predict the LAST sweep with certainty This is a sure-fire way to burn your money. Here's what to do instead: Step 1: Identify market control Look at structure. Higher highs and higher lows? Buyers are in control. We're only trading from demand zones. Step 2: Mark your liquidity zones Find equal lows. When retail sees a "double bottom," they go long because textbooks tell them to. Their stop losses sit right below those lows. Available liquidity for institutions to sweep. Step 3: Wait for the sweep Price drops, sweeps those stops, liquidates retail traders, then creates a sharp V-shaped reaction. This sweep breaks structure. Zoom into 1-hour timeframe - price was making lower highs and lows. After the sweep? Higher highs and higher lows. That sweep zone becomes your institutional demand zone. Step 4: Enter on mitigation Wait for price to pull back to the liquidity zone. Enter there. Stop below the zone. Target 2-3R. Remember: You'll NEVER predict with 100% certainty when it's the LAST liquidity sweep. Sometimes price sweeps 2-3 times before the real move. But that's trading—we trade probabilities, not certainties. Also, keep in mind: If you can't spot the liquidity, you ARE the liquidity. — This is just a breakdown of one of the trading strategies we covered in our 2-hour long cryptocurrency trading course. I also discussed the trend pullback strategy, how to trade breakout retests without getting stopped out on fake moves, and why understanding liquidity is the only way to avoid becoming exit liquidity. Just comment "COURSE" and I'll DM it to you immediately so you can watch it.

The Trading Geek (Brad Goh)

54,151 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Sweep of an inducement low into a true open tells you when the time is right. TWO + GBT + ACSD $NQ Long 27th of February 2026

Sweep of an inducement low into a true open tells you when the time is right. TWO + GBT + ACSD $NQ Long 27th of February 2026

Brox

16,140 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

90% of traders would FAIL this trade before it even started. Why? Because they entered without knowing where the odds were leaning. Meanwhile I had: • 70%+ probabilities • statistical bias • liquidity target already mapped So while retail was guessing… I was waiting for confirmation INTO the more probable side. That’s the difference between random trading… and engineered trading. The scary part? Once you start trading with probabilities… you realize how blind normal trading actually is. Trade with probabilities. Not predictions. Would you take a trade if you knew there was a 75%+ chance price hits one side first? #NQ #ICT

90% of traders would FAIL this trade before it even started. Why? Because they entered without knowing where the odds were leaning. Meanwhile I had: • 70%+ probabilities • statistical bias • liquidity target already mapped So while retail was guessing… I was waiting for confirmation INTO the more probable side. That’s the difference between random trading… and engineered trading. The scary part? Once you start trading with probabilities… you realize how blind normal trading actually is. Trade with probabilities. Not predictions. Would you take a trade if you knew there was a 75%+ chance price hits one side first? #NQ #ICT

Herman Trading

11,819 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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?

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Jordan Peterson on why imposter syndrome is not the problem you think it is: 1. feeling like an imposter is actually a marker of mental health and competence. the people who do not feel it are the narcissists. if you have any sense and you are not deluded about your abilities you will feel some version of this every time you level up. peterson says the absence of imposter syndrome should concern you more than its presence. 2. every time you move up you will feel like an imposter. that is not a flaw. it is accurate. when you first enter a new role you are a beginner. you do not know what you are doing yet. feeling like an imposter at that stage is not a sign of weakness. it is a sign that you have enough self awareness to recognize the gap between where you are and where you need to be. 3. admitting ignorance to competent people never goes badly. people are afraid to ask questions because they think they are the only one in the room who does not know. they are not. if you were paying attention and you had a question the probability that half the room had the same question is very high. you only have to ask a stupid question once. after that you are no longer stupid about it. 4. intellectual humility is endearing to people who are actually good at what they do. competent people are always asking questions too because they know how much they do not know. when they see you asking questions they do not think you are incompetent. they think you probably are competent. 5. there is a darker version of imposter syndrome called imposter adaptation. hedonic adaptation is where happiness resets after good things happen. imposter adaptation is where the feeling of being a fraud persists no matter how many times you disprove it. you keep succeeding. the feeling keeps returning. at some point you have to admit the feeling has nothing to do with your actual capacity and everything to do with an addiction to feeling like an imposter. 6. high neuroticism makes this significantly worse. neuroticism is sensitivity to threat and punishment. people high in this trait need more evidence to feel safe and competent. the calibration problem is nearly impossible. you wake up with an ache in your side. is it nothing or is it cancer. most of the time it is nothing. the neurotic brain cannot easily tell the difference and applies the same logic to professional competence. 7. the only treatment that actually works is voluntary exposure to the things you are afraid of. you keep facing challenges. you keep paying attention. you develop competence. the environment becomes more predictable. the evidence accumulates. the people around you build confidence in you and that confidence reflects back. there is no shortcut. that is the pathway.

Jordan Peterson on why imposter syndrome is not the problem you think it is: 1. feeling like an imposter is actually a marker of mental health and competence. the people who do not feel it are the narcissists. if you have any sense and you are not deluded about your abilities you will feel some version of this every time you level up. peterson says the absence of imposter syndrome should concern you more than its presence. 2. every time you move up you will feel like an imposter. that is not a flaw. it is accurate. when you first enter a new role you are a beginner. you do not know what you are doing yet. feeling like an imposter at that stage is not a sign of weakness. it is a sign that you have enough self awareness to recognize the gap between where you are and where you need to be. 3. admitting ignorance to competent people never goes badly. people are afraid to ask questions because they think they are the only one in the room who does not know. they are not. if you were paying attention and you had a question the probability that half the room had the same question is very high. you only have to ask a stupid question once. after that you are no longer stupid about it. 4. intellectual humility is endearing to people who are actually good at what they do. competent people are always asking questions too because they know how much they do not know. when they see you asking questions they do not think you are incompetent. they think you probably are competent. 5. there is a darker version of imposter syndrome called imposter adaptation. hedonic adaptation is where happiness resets after good things happen. imposter adaptation is where the feeling of being a fraud persists no matter how many times you disprove it. you keep succeeding. the feeling keeps returning. at some point you have to admit the feeling has nothing to do with your actual capacity and everything to do with an addiction to feeling like an imposter. 6. high neuroticism makes this significantly worse. neuroticism is sensitivity to threat and punishment. people high in this trait need more evidence to feel safe and competent. the calibration problem is nearly impossible. you wake up with an ache in your side. is it nothing or is it cancer. most of the time it is nothing. the neurotic brain cannot easily tell the difference and applies the same logic to professional competence. 7. the only treatment that actually works is voluntary exposure to the things you are afraid of. you keep facing challenges. you keep paying attention. you develop competence. the environment becomes more predictable. the evidence accumulates. the people around you build confidence in you and that confidence reflects back. there is no shortcut. that is the pathway.

Jaynit

54,881 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.

Sam Altman just handed every startup founder a one-question autopsy. Altman: “If you’re building something on GPT-4 that a reasonable observer would say we’re going to steamroll you.” Not might. Not could. Going to. He said it with the calm of someone describing weather. Because to him it is weather. The model improves. Whatever was built on the old version’s weaknesses gets washed away. That is not strategy. That is erosion. And most founders are building on the erosion line. They find a gap in the current model. They wrap a product around it. They raise money. They hire. They scale. Then OpenAI releases the next version and the gap closes and the product has no reason to exist anymore. Altman: “When we just do our fundamental job, which is make the model better with every crank, then you get the ‘OpenAI killed my startup’ meme.” He is telling you directly. They are not hunting you. They are not even thinking about you. They are just improving the model. You happen to be standing where the improvement lands. That is the part founders refuse to hear. OpenAI does not need to compete with you. It just needs to keep doing exactly what it was already doing and your entire company disappears as a side effect. You are not a competitor. You are a temporary symptom of incomplete intelligence. The moment the intelligence completes you become nothing. Then Brad Lightcap delivered the cleanest diagnostic ever spoken in venture capital. Lightcap: “Ask if a 100x improvement in the model is something they’re excited about.” One question. The entire investment thesis reduced to a single binary. Does the next model make your company more powerful or does it make your company pointless. There is no middle ground. Lightcap: “We know the companies that come to us saying, ‘We want the next model. When is it coming out? I want to be the first to try it.’” These companies built something that feeds on intelligence. The smarter the model gets the more their product can do. They are not threatened by progress. They are starving for it. Then there are the companies Lightcap never hears from. The ones who go quiet when a new model drops. The ones who read the release notes like a death sentence. The ones privately praying the next generation takes longer because every improvement shrinks the ground beneath them. If you are hoping the model stays roughly where it is you have already told the market everything it needs to know about your company. You are not building on intelligence. You are building on the absence of it. Altman: “95% of the world should be betting on the latter category.” The latter category is simple. Assume the model keeps getting better at the pace it has been getting better. Build for that world. Not the world where GPT-4 is the ceiling. The world where GPT-4 is the floor and the ceiling has not been built yet. Then Altman told a story that should be framed on the wall of every startup in the country. A medical AI company came to him that morning. They were not complaining about the model. They were not worried about being replaced. They were demanding it improve faster. Altman: “Here’s how many people are dying every day you delay.” That is what alignment with the trajectory looks like. A company so deeply built on intelligence improving that every day the model stays the same is a day someone dies who did not have to. They are not building on a flaw. They are building on a future that has not arrived fast enough. That is the difference. The wrapper startup patches what the model cannot do today. The real company builds what the model will unlock tomorrow. One is running from the train. The other is laying the track. Altman told you the train is not slowing down. Lightcap told you exactly how to know which side you are on. One question. Does a 100x smarter model make you more valuable or erase you. If you had to pause before answering you already did.

Dustin

39,109 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

John Major, "Our links to Europe and America may be loser now than once they were and that is a loss" "The loss of trade with Europe alone costs us £100 billion of lost trade every year" "That's a tax yield of £40 billion" "How useful would that have been in recent months to the Chancellor?" "With the many decisions that she took, which she ought not have taken, and would not have needed to take, had we not left the European Union" "We are told we should get over it and move on" "That is of course exactly what a burglar would say to the ransacked home owner when they finally confront one another" "That's not a view I have taken" "If you suffer a loss, you must look at a way of recovering much of the ground you have lost" "And the sooner we do that the better it will be for our economic standing and our reputation in many parts of the world"

John Major, "Our links to Europe and America may be loser now than once they were and that is a loss" "The loss of trade with Europe alone costs us £100 billion of lost trade every year" "That's a tax yield of £40 billion" "How useful would that have been in recent months to the Chancellor?" "With the many decisions that she took, which she ought not have taken, and would not have needed to take, had we not left the European Union" "We are told we should get over it and move on" "That is of course exactly what a burglar would say to the ransacked home owner when they finally confront one another" "That's not a view I have taken" "If you suffer a loss, you must look at a way of recovering much of the ground you have lost" "And the sooner we do that the better it will be for our economic standing and our reputation in many parts of the world"

Farrukh

130,272 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

My wife hates when I trade from my phone on holiday. 😅 So I did a quick sneak out just before NY time. New York Probability Map showed 71.8% probability to sweep London’s High first. Trade entry: First iFVG in the direction of the more probable side. TP hit 20 minutes later. Was it guaranteed? No. But I had probabilities on my side before the session even opened. That changes everything. Most traders search for entries first. Professionals search for directional bias first. Do you trade differently when you already know the more probable side?

My wife hates when I trade from my phone on holiday. 😅 So I did a quick sneak out just before NY time. New York Probability Map showed 71.8% probability to sweep London’s High first. Trade entry: First iFVG in the direction of the more probable side. TP hit 20 minutes later. Was it guaranteed? No. But I had probabilities on my side before the session even opened. That changes everything. Most traders search for entries first. Professionals search for directional bias first. Do you trade differently when you already know the more probable side?

Herman Trading

159,697 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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?

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

29,991 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten