正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

ICT Algorithmic Price Delivery 👁 Eye Training Drill 📉GBPJPY 💎High probability BMS #theicd

Market Maker Trading

67,473 subscribers

46,849 次观看 • 3 年前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

8 条评论

The ICT Academy 的头像

The ICT Academy3 年前

Learn here:

The Professor 的头像

The Professor3 年前

That's a hell of a big trap

Alisher Khan 的头像

Alisher Khan3 年前

🤌🏼

Jossi 👨‍💻👨‍💻 ✨✨ 的头像

Jossi 👨‍💻👨‍💻 ✨✨3 年前

Please what date is this

sonu 的头像

sonu3 年前

How you took this -ob in 5m chart brother....?

Nayla D. Logia 的头像

Nayla D. Logia3 年前

Wow 💚💚💚 thanks for sharing

Dream Boy 的头像

Dream Boy3 年前

@downvideobot

Dennis Chibuikem 的头像

Dennis Chibuikem3 年前

@Savevidnow

相关视频

ICT Algorithmic Price Delivery 👁 EYE TRAINING DRILL 📉 EURUSD 💎 iFVG Entry #theicd

ICT Algorithmic Price Delivery 👁 EYE TRAINING DRILL 📉 EURUSD 💎 iFVG Entry #theicd

Market Maker Trading

15,700 次观看 • 2 年前

ICT Algorithmic Price Delivery 👁Eye Training Drill 📈USDJPY 💎FVG C.E confirmation #theicd

ICT Algorithmic Price Delivery 👁Eye Training Drill 📈USDJPY 💎FVG C.E confirmation #theicd

Market Maker Trading

54,736 次观看 • 3 年前

ICT Algorithmic Price Delivery 👁 EYE TRAINING DRILL 📈 AUDUSD 💎 UNICORN MODEL 🦄 #theicd

ICT Algorithmic Price Delivery 👁 EYE TRAINING DRILL 📈 AUDUSD 💎 UNICORN MODEL 🦄 #theicd

Market Maker Trading

177,685 次观看 • 2 年前

ICT Algorithmic Price Delivery EYE TRAINING DRILL OIL MMBM/Entry ICT 2022 Model

ICT Algorithmic Price Delivery EYE TRAINING DRILL OIL MMBM/Entry ICT 2022 Model

Market Maker Trading

20,908 次观看 • 2 年前

ICT Algorithmic Price Delivery EYE TRAINING DRILL GBP Market Maker Buy Model Long Trade

ICT Algorithmic Price Delivery EYE TRAINING DRILL GBP Market Maker Buy Model Long Trade

Market Maker Trading

32,704 次观看 • 2 年前

FREE e-Book (The ICT Bible) Link in bio ICT Algorithmic Price Delivery EYE TRAINING DRILL S&P Market Maker Sell Model Short Trade . . . . . #trading #tradingeducation #priceaction #smc #forextrader #smartmoneyconcepts #forex #innercircletrader #ict #chartpattern #indices #stockmarket #forex #crypto

FREE e-Book (The ICT Bible) Link in bio ICT Algorithmic Price Delivery EYE TRAINING DRILL S&P Market Maker Sell Model Short Trade . . . . . #trading #tradingeducation #priceaction #smc #forextrader #smartmoneyconcepts #forex #innercircletrader #ict #chartpattern #indices #stockmarket #forex #crypto

Market Maker Trading

63,357 次观看 • 2 年前

💎Watch rare ICT mentorship video where ICT Explaining- 1. Key Institutional Volatility 2. When to anticipate large injection of "Volatility" 3. High Probability "Breaker" its deep :)

💎Watch rare ICT mentorship video where ICT Explaining- 1. Key Institutional Volatility 2. When to anticipate large injection of "Volatility" 3. High Probability "Breaker" its deep :)

HYDRA

100,566 次观看 • 3 年前

ICT teaches how to find High Probability FVGs 💎 In this lesson, ICT provides advanced insights regarding how to use the high time frame candles to filter out high probability FVGs in the lower time trames for our intraday trades. Prepare to take some notes with this one.

ICT teaches how to find High Probability FVGs 💎 In this lesson, ICT provides advanced insights regarding how to use the high time frame candles to filter out high probability FVGs in the lower time trames for our intraday trades. Prepare to take some notes with this one.

ICT private mentorship videos & forum discussions

26,614 次观看 • 1 个月前

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 次观看 • 4 个月前

ICT EXPLAINS CHANGE IN THE STATE OF DELIVERY (CISD)💎💎 Bullish CISD - A close above the opening price of a down closed candle Bearish CISD - A close below the opening price of an up closed candle 🧠CISD🧠 - Occurs at the inception of EVERY price run - Occurs every single day, in every market " This is only 1 form of my bullish order block" - ICT How I find the most success using this logic👇👇 - Establish a HTF draw on liquidity - Look for LTF CISD at liquidity aligned with that HTF draw on liquidity/order flow THIS HAS THE MOST PRECISION ONCE YOU ARE ALIGNED WITH WHERE PRICE IS GOING HTF!!

ICT EXPLAINS CHANGE IN THE STATE OF DELIVERY (CISD)💎💎 Bullish CISD - A close above the opening price of a down closed candle Bearish CISD - A close below the opening price of an up closed candle 🧠CISD🧠 - Occurs at the inception of EVERY price run - Occurs every single day, in every market " This is only 1 form of my bullish order block" - ICT How I find the most success using this logic👇👇 - Establish a HTF draw on liquidity - Look for LTF CISD at liquidity aligned with that HTF draw on liquidity/order flow THIS HAS THE MOST PRECISION ONCE YOU ARE ALIGNED WITH WHERE PRICE IS GOING HTF!!

DanDowdTrading

48,300 次观看 • 2 年前

☢️"9:20-9:40 HYDRA macro" +4r "Turtle Soup" delivery on #DowJones What's the benefit of watching trade management recordings? 1. you will understand how to expect the price delivery 2. what pro traders think before executing 3. How they manage there SL & Trade 4. How the setup will form 5. what type of targets are High probability 6. Confidence 7. Patience Last but not least 8. How to align time+Price this is what providing value to the community looks like :)

☢️"9:20-9:40 HYDRA macro" +4r "Turtle Soup" delivery on #DowJones What's the benefit of watching trade management recordings? 1. you will understand how to expect the price delivery 2. what pro traders think before executing 3. How they manage there SL & Trade 4. How the setup will form 5. what type of targets are High probability 6. Confidence 7. Patience Last but not least 8. How to align time+Price this is what providing value to the community looks like :)

HYDRA

32,401 次观看 • 2 年前

What Makes an A+++ Setup (According to a $291K Trader) A setup is the specific market condition where all your criteria align for a high-probability trade entry. Most traders don't understand the criteria that makes a solid entry. They take every setup that looks "good enough" — and end up with 1:2 or 1:3 risk-to-reward ratios, grinding for small wins. Here's the difference: An A+++ setup allowed my student Said to make $86,000 in one day from just 3 trades (with 1:18, 1:7, and 1:10 R/R). And $291k over the last 1.5 years. If there’s a mediocre setup, he won’t take it. Some weeks he only trades twice because he's waiting for perfection. In the 2-minute clip below, my student Said walks through the 5 elements that must align for an A+++ setup: 1) Inverse Fair Value Gap — An imbalance price needs to fill 2) Inducement — Liquidity sweep that triggers early traders 3) Imbalance — Gap in price delivery that draws price back 4) Protected Level — Previous inducement + break of structure creates an internal floor/ceiling 5) Break of Structure — Confirmation that one side is in control Said also looks for setups where you have TWO protected levels, not just one. This gives him the confidence to enter at the end of the fair value gap without waiting for additional confirmation. Stop loss goes just below the protected level — tight risk, massive reward potential. — This is just scratching the surface of what Said shared. In the full 1-hour interview, we also dove into: • The exact 3 trades that made him $86K in a single day (with timestamped chart breakdowns) • How he combined two different strategies into one profitable system • Why he still backtests 1-1.5 hours daily even after making $100K/month Just comment "INTERVIEW" and I'll DM you the full interview in the next few minutes.

What Makes an A+++ Setup (According to a $291K Trader) A setup is the specific market condition where all your criteria align for a high-probability trade entry. Most traders don't understand the criteria that makes a solid entry. They take every setup that looks "good enough" — and end up with 1:2 or 1:3 risk-to-reward ratios, grinding for small wins. Here's the difference: An A+++ setup allowed my student Said to make $86,000 in one day from just 3 trades (with 1:18, 1:7, and 1:10 R/R). And $291k over the last 1.5 years. If there’s a mediocre setup, he won’t take it. Some weeks he only trades twice because he's waiting for perfection. In the 2-minute clip below, my student Said walks through the 5 elements that must align for an A+++ setup: 1) Inverse Fair Value Gap — An imbalance price needs to fill 2) Inducement — Liquidity sweep that triggers early traders 3) Imbalance — Gap in price delivery that draws price back 4) Protected Level — Previous inducement + break of structure creates an internal floor/ceiling 5) Break of Structure — Confirmation that one side is in control Said also looks for setups where you have TWO protected levels, not just one. This gives him the confidence to enter at the end of the fair value gap without waiting for additional confirmation. Stop loss goes just below the protected level — tight risk, massive reward potential. — This is just scratching the surface of what Said shared. In the full 1-hour interview, we also dove into: • The exact 3 trades that made him $86K in a single day (with timestamped chart breakdowns) • How he combined two different strategies into one profitable system • Why he still backtests 1-1.5 hours daily even after making $100K/month Just comment "INTERVIEW" and I'll DM you the full interview in the next few minutes.

The Trading Geek (Brad Goh)

15,374 次观看 • 8 个月前

🚩🚩 Watching "The Big Short" in 2025 is dejavu... The 2008 housing bubble feels eerily relevant with today's sky-high stock & housing valuations 🤌 In 08, the crisis stemmed from a massively overvalued housing market fueled by risky subprime loans, lax regulation, and greed Banks bundled junk mortgages into "safe" securities, creating the massive housing bubble... Nothing has really changed. It's just a facade. TODAY: 📈📉 The Fed is warning about overleveraged hedge funds. - Michael Burry is betting on Palantir dropping in price with puts worth nearly $1 billion = 66% of his firms AUM. -Stocks are screaming "overvalued" in every way. - The S&P 500 is 63% above its long-term trend -The Warren Buffett Indicator is at a record 217%+ - Goldman & Morgan Stanley predict 20% corrections soon. 🏠🏠 Housing is bubbly and overvalued from the 2020 free money, low interest rates, and bidding wars. -Sales are crashing while prices stall. - Experts call the market "frozen" with subdued growth -Not as leveraged as '08, but affordability's tanked with higher rates. -Speculative bubbles (AI/tech stocks now vs. housing then) - Many expert warnings of crashes with scary similarities -Fed stopping QT and beginning easing amid softening economy - 1 million+ fewer jobs created in 2024 than stated by the Biden admin per revisions to 2024's fake numbers - falling new-job numbers for 2025 - Growing Repo market borrowing from desperate banks (again) -Volatility rising on potential meltdowns 2025's mess is more driven by toxic derivatives in the stock market, lax regulation, and greed... 🤌 it's just a different flavor of 2008. And still, impunity for banks and big players persists... sound familiar? Nothing changed. It's time for change - 🔥LIT🔥XCHANGE🔥 🚨 Buckle up and repost if you're ready for the housing and stock market corrections 💎 🙌

🚩🚩 Watching "The Big Short" in 2025 is dejavu... The 2008 housing bubble feels eerily relevant with today's sky-high stock & housing valuations 🤌 In 08, the crisis stemmed from a massively overvalued housing market fueled by risky subprime loans, lax regulation, and greed Banks bundled junk mortgages into "safe" securities, creating the massive housing bubble... Nothing has really changed. It's just a facade. TODAY: 📈📉 The Fed is warning about overleveraged hedge funds. - Michael Burry is betting on Palantir dropping in price with puts worth nearly $1 billion = 66% of his firms AUM. -Stocks are screaming "overvalued" in every way. - The S&P 500 is 63% above its long-term trend -The Warren Buffett Indicator is at a record 217%+ - Goldman & Morgan Stanley predict 20% corrections soon. 🏠🏠 Housing is bubbly and overvalued from the 2020 free money, low interest rates, and bidding wars. -Sales are crashing while prices stall. - Experts call the market "frozen" with subdued growth -Not as leveraged as '08, but affordability's tanked with higher rates. -Speculative bubbles (AI/tech stocks now vs. housing then) - Many expert warnings of crashes with scary similarities -Fed stopping QT and beginning easing amid softening economy - 1 million+ fewer jobs created in 2024 than stated by the Biden admin per revisions to 2024's fake numbers - falling new-job numbers for 2025 - Growing Repo market borrowing from desperate banks (again) -Volatility rising on potential meltdowns 2025's mess is more driven by toxic derivatives in the stock market, lax regulation, and greed... 🤌 it's just a different flavor of 2008. And still, impunity for banks and big players persists... sound familiar? Nothing changed. It's time for change - 🔥LIT🔥XCHANGE🔥 🚨 Buckle up and repost if you're ready for the housing and stock market corrections 💎 🙌

The Butcher of Wall Street | Marcel Kalinovic

506,013 次观看 • 10 个月前

🚨 I CALIBRATED BITCOIN’S EMPIRICAL PI BOTTOM ZONE - AND THE $30K BEARS NEED A WELLNESS CHECK 🚨 Bitcoin is trading at approximately $64,900 as I write this. On June 30, Bitcoin printed what is currently the cycle low at $58,526. I believe that low may have been far more structurally significant than people realize. I took the original Pi Cycle architecture, inverted the question, and calibrated the relationship against Bitcoin’s mature terminal cycle lows. The result is what I call the: EMPIRICAL PI BOTTOM COMPRESSION ZONE 0.65 ≤ 111DMA / 350DMA ≤ 0.75 Translated from spreadsheet necromancy into English: Bitcoin’s mature cycle lows have formed when the 111-day moving average traded between approximately 65% and 75% of the 350-day moving average - a sustained compression of 25%–35% beneath the long-term trend. Here is exactly how I derived it. The traditional Pi Cycle Top compares: Bitcoin’s 111-day simple moving average and Bitcoin’s 350-day simple moving average multiplied by 2. The periods are significant because 350 / 111 = 3.153 Pi = 3.142 Hence “Pi Cycle.” The traditional top signal occurs when: 111DMA = 2 × 350DMA This means Bitcoin’s medium-term price trend has become so violently overheated that the 111-day average reaches TWICE the slower 350-day average. This is approximately when your barber discovers leverage, your dentist launches a token, and a man named “ByzantineWhale” begins financing a Lamborghini using an unsecured loan collateralized by screenshots. But what would the exact inverse look like? The clean mathematical inverse of doubling is halving: 111DMA = 0.5 × 350DMA That would create perfect multiplicative symmetry: Top: 111DMA / 350DMA = 2.00 Equilibrium: 111DMA / 350DMA = 1.00 Bottom: 111DMA / 350DMA = 0.50 Beautiful. I tested it across 5,743 daily observations from November 2010 through July 2026. The exact inverse bottom crossover occurred precisely ZERO times. Bitcoin has never pushed its 111DMA all the way down to half of its 350DMA. The lowest ratio in the dataset was approximately 0.573 on September 30, 2022. Bitcoin’s bull markets can launch the short-term average into low Earth orbit, but its bear markets stop just before the moving averages are legally declared deceased. So I abandoned the theoretically perfect inverse and measured the relationship that actually existed at Bitcoin’s mature terminal cycle lows. Define: R = 111DMA / 350DMA At the January 14, 2015 cycle low: BTC price = $171 111DMA = $347.75 350DMA = $490.36 R = 347.75 / 490.36 R = 0.709 The 111DMA traded 29.1% beneath the 350DMA. At the December 15, 2018 cycle low: BTC price = $3,180 111DMA = $5,811.31 350DMA = $7,712.15 R = 5,811.31 / 7,712.15 R = 0.754 The 111DMA traded 24.6% beneath the 350DMA. At the November 21, 2022 cycle low: BTC price = $15,766 111DMA = $20,081.11 350DMA = $30,935.25 R = 20,081.11 / 30,935.25 R = 0.649 The 111DMA traded 35.1% beneath the 350DMA. Three mature terminal cycle lows: 2015: 0.709 2018: 0.754 2022: 0.649 Rounded into an empirically observed regime: 0.65 ≤ R ≤ 0.75 Or: 25% ≤ 1 − R ≤ 35% That is my Empirical Pi Bottom Compression Zone. It does not pretend to identify whether Bitcoin bottoms at 2:37 p.m. on a Wednesday while Kevin Warsh clears his throat. It identifies a structural regime. The 350DMA represents Bitcoin’s slower long-term trend. The 111DMA represents the market’s more recent price experience. For the 111DMA to fall 25%–35% beneath the 350DMA, Bitcoin cannot merely suffer one terrible afternoon. Weak prices must persist long enough to poison an entire 111-day window. This measures the DURATION of the suffering - not merely the violence of one liquidation. That is why I exclude March 2020 from the calibration. March 2020 was a violent mid-cycle liquidity shock, not the terminal low of a completed Bitcoin bear cycle. I also treat 2011 separately because Bitcoin was still in its embryonic price-discovery era. The market and its long-term moving-average structure were not remotely comparable with the mature post-2013 cycles. Three observations are not the Ten Commandments brought down from Mount Nakamoto. This is a small-sample empirical classification... not divine law and not a guaranteed price floor. But the consistency is fascinating. Now consider June 30, 2026. BTC price: $58,526 111DMA: $71,330 350DMA: $89,805 The formal ratio was: R = 71,330 / 89,805 R = 0.794 That placed the moving-average ratio just above the 0.75 upper boundary. The full smoothed indicator had not yet formally entered the empirical zone. But look at the contemporaneous numerical price corridor created by the 350DMA: Upper boundary: 0.75 × $89,805 = $67,353 Lower boundary: 0.65 × $89,805 = $58,373 Bitcoin’s June 30 low: $58,526 Bitcoin bottomed only $153 above the lower edge of that entire $58,373–$67,353 corridor. That is absurdly close. To be precise, this does not mean spot price and the 111DMA are interchangeable. They are not. The formal metric uses the 111DMA, and moving averages are path-dependent. But as a secondary price-location confluence, Bitcoin placing its cycle low almost directly on the lower numerical boundary while the ratio was approaching the zone is incredibly interesting. Where are we now? Using the latest completed daily data: 111DMA: approximately $70,150 350DMA: approximately $86,454 R = 70,150 / 86,454 R = 0.811 Current compression: 1 − 0.811 = 18.9% With Bitcoin around $64,900, price is now approximately 10.9% above the June 30 low. The bears are nevertheless sitting online demanding $40,000, $30,000, and in some cases prices last seen when half the industry was still pretending an algorithmic stablecoin was money. Let us quantify what they are actually predicting. From approximately $64,900: $40,000 requires another 38.4% collapse. $30,000 requires another 53.8% collapse. From the June 30 low of $58,526: $40,000 requires another 31.7% decline. $30,000 requires another 48.7% decline. From the October 2025 all-time high near $126,223: $40,000 represents a total drawdown of approximately 68.3%. $30,000 represents a total drawdown of approximately 76.2%. Can Bitcoin trade at $30,000–$40,000? Of course. Bitcoin is capable of doing anything required to make the maximum number of people look stupid simultaneously. But this metric cannot honestly assign a precise probability to those prices from only three mature cycles. What it can reveal is the structural violence required. Using the current trailing price history as a simple path-dependent illustration: If Bitcoin fell to $40,000 and remained there, it would take approximately 34 consecutive daily closes around $40,000 to drag the 111DMA/350DMA ratio into the zone at 0.75. It would take approximately 98 days around $40,000 to drive the ratio to the lower 0.65 boundary. If Bitcoin fell to $30,000 and remained there, it would take approximately 25 days to reach 0.75 and approximately 54 days to reach 0.65. Those are simplified constant-price scenarios, not forecasts, but they expose what the bearish thesis actually requires. The $30K–$40K crowd is not merely predicting a wick. They are underwriting an extended structural repricing powerful enough to drag an entire 111-day average through the regime that contained Bitcoin’s mature terminal cycle lows. That is possible. Treating it as the obvious base case is statistically unserious. The market already fell approximately 53.6% from the October 2025 all-time high to the June 30 low. Spot then landed only $153 above the lower numerical boundary of the contemporaneous empirical corridor. Now Bitcoin has recovered to approximately $64,900 while the bears demand an additional 38%–54% execution in the basement because apparently the first liquidation of half the market was merely an appetizer. Their thesis requires Bitcoin to invalidate the June 30 confluence, destroy the developing compression structure, and sustain dramatically lower prices long enough to rewrite the moving-average regime. Maybe that happens. But “possible” and “probable” are not synonyms just because someone drew a red arrow on TradingView. The traditional Pi Cycle Top measures when Bitcoin’s medium-term trend becomes obscenely overheated relative to its structural trend. My Empirical Pi Bottom Zone measures when that medium-term trend has been methodically compressed beneath it for long enough to resemble Bitcoin’s mature terminal bear-market lows. One measures the mathematics of mania. The other measures whether the market has completed the psychological liquidation of everyone who bought the top using money they described as “basically free.” Derived from Philip Swift’s original 111/350 Pi Cycle architecture. Empirical bottom-zone calibration by Adam Livingston, 2026:

🚨 I CALIBRATED BITCOIN’S EMPIRICAL PI BOTTOM ZONE - AND THE $30K BEARS NEED A WELLNESS CHECK 🚨 Bitcoin is trading at approximately $64,900 as I write this. On June 30, Bitcoin printed what is currently the cycle low at $58,526. I believe that low may have been far more structurally significant than people realize. I took the original Pi Cycle architecture, inverted the question, and calibrated the relationship against Bitcoin’s mature terminal cycle lows. The result is what I call the: EMPIRICAL PI BOTTOM COMPRESSION ZONE 0.65 ≤ 111DMA / 350DMA ≤ 0.75 Translated from spreadsheet necromancy into English: Bitcoin’s mature cycle lows have formed when the 111-day moving average traded between approximately 65% and 75% of the 350-day moving average - a sustained compression of 25%–35% beneath the long-term trend. Here is exactly how I derived it. The traditional Pi Cycle Top compares: Bitcoin’s 111-day simple moving average and Bitcoin’s 350-day simple moving average multiplied by 2. The periods are significant because 350 / 111 = 3.153 Pi = 3.142 Hence “Pi Cycle.” The traditional top signal occurs when: 111DMA = 2 × 350DMA This means Bitcoin’s medium-term price trend has become so violently overheated that the 111-day average reaches TWICE the slower 350-day average. This is approximately when your barber discovers leverage, your dentist launches a token, and a man named “ByzantineWhale” begins financing a Lamborghini using an unsecured loan collateralized by screenshots. But what would the exact inverse look like? The clean mathematical inverse of doubling is halving: 111DMA = 0.5 × 350DMA That would create perfect multiplicative symmetry: Top: 111DMA / 350DMA = 2.00 Equilibrium: 111DMA / 350DMA = 1.00 Bottom: 111DMA / 350DMA = 0.50 Beautiful. I tested it across 5,743 daily observations from November 2010 through July 2026. The exact inverse bottom crossover occurred precisely ZERO times. Bitcoin has never pushed its 111DMA all the way down to half of its 350DMA. The lowest ratio in the dataset was approximately 0.573 on September 30, 2022. Bitcoin’s bull markets can launch the short-term average into low Earth orbit, but its bear markets stop just before the moving averages are legally declared deceased. So I abandoned the theoretically perfect inverse and measured the relationship that actually existed at Bitcoin’s mature terminal cycle lows. Define: R = 111DMA / 350DMA At the January 14, 2015 cycle low: BTC price = $171 111DMA = $347.75 350DMA = $490.36 R = 347.75 / 490.36 R = 0.709 The 111DMA traded 29.1% beneath the 350DMA. At the December 15, 2018 cycle low: BTC price = $3,180 111DMA = $5,811.31 350DMA = $7,712.15 R = 5,811.31 / 7,712.15 R = 0.754 The 111DMA traded 24.6% beneath the 350DMA. At the November 21, 2022 cycle low: BTC price = $15,766 111DMA = $20,081.11 350DMA = $30,935.25 R = 20,081.11 / 30,935.25 R = 0.649 The 111DMA traded 35.1% beneath the 350DMA. Three mature terminal cycle lows: 2015: 0.709 2018: 0.754 2022: 0.649 Rounded into an empirically observed regime: 0.65 ≤ R ≤ 0.75 Or: 25% ≤ 1 − R ≤ 35% That is my Empirical Pi Bottom Compression Zone. It does not pretend to identify whether Bitcoin bottoms at 2:37 p.m. on a Wednesday while Kevin Warsh clears his throat. It identifies a structural regime. The 350DMA represents Bitcoin’s slower long-term trend. The 111DMA represents the market’s more recent price experience. For the 111DMA to fall 25%–35% beneath the 350DMA, Bitcoin cannot merely suffer one terrible afternoon. Weak prices must persist long enough to poison an entire 111-day window. This measures the DURATION of the suffering - not merely the violence of one liquidation. That is why I exclude March 2020 from the calibration. March 2020 was a violent mid-cycle liquidity shock, not the terminal low of a completed Bitcoin bear cycle. I also treat 2011 separately because Bitcoin was still in its embryonic price-discovery era. The market and its long-term moving-average structure were not remotely comparable with the mature post-2013 cycles. Three observations are not the Ten Commandments brought down from Mount Nakamoto. This is a small-sample empirical classification... not divine law and not a guaranteed price floor. But the consistency is fascinating. Now consider June 30, 2026. BTC price: $58,526 111DMA: $71,330 350DMA: $89,805 The formal ratio was: R = 71,330 / 89,805 R = 0.794 That placed the moving-average ratio just above the 0.75 upper boundary. The full smoothed indicator had not yet formally entered the empirical zone. But look at the contemporaneous numerical price corridor created by the 350DMA: Upper boundary: 0.75 × $89,805 = $67,353 Lower boundary: 0.65 × $89,805 = $58,373 Bitcoin’s June 30 low: $58,526 Bitcoin bottomed only $153 above the lower edge of that entire $58,373–$67,353 corridor. That is absurdly close. To be precise, this does not mean spot price and the 111DMA are interchangeable. They are not. The formal metric uses the 111DMA, and moving averages are path-dependent. But as a secondary price-location confluence, Bitcoin placing its cycle low almost directly on the lower numerical boundary while the ratio was approaching the zone is incredibly interesting. Where are we now? Using the latest completed daily data: 111DMA: approximately $70,150 350DMA: approximately $86,454 R = 70,150 / 86,454 R = 0.811 Current compression: 1 − 0.811 = 18.9% With Bitcoin around $64,900, price is now approximately 10.9% above the June 30 low. The bears are nevertheless sitting online demanding $40,000, $30,000, and in some cases prices last seen when half the industry was still pretending an algorithmic stablecoin was money. Let us quantify what they are actually predicting. From approximately $64,900: $40,000 requires another 38.4% collapse. $30,000 requires another 53.8% collapse. From the June 30 low of $58,526: $40,000 requires another 31.7% decline. $30,000 requires another 48.7% decline. From the October 2025 all-time high near $126,223: $40,000 represents a total drawdown of approximately 68.3%. $30,000 represents a total drawdown of approximately 76.2%. Can Bitcoin trade at $30,000–$40,000? Of course. Bitcoin is capable of doing anything required to make the maximum number of people look stupid simultaneously. But this metric cannot honestly assign a precise probability to those prices from only three mature cycles. What it can reveal is the structural violence required. Using the current trailing price history as a simple path-dependent illustration: If Bitcoin fell to $40,000 and remained there, it would take approximately 34 consecutive daily closes around $40,000 to drag the 111DMA/350DMA ratio into the zone at 0.75. It would take approximately 98 days around $40,000 to drive the ratio to the lower 0.65 boundary. If Bitcoin fell to $30,000 and remained there, it would take approximately 25 days to reach 0.75 and approximately 54 days to reach 0.65. Those are simplified constant-price scenarios, not forecasts, but they expose what the bearish thesis actually requires. The $30K–$40K crowd is not merely predicting a wick. They are underwriting an extended structural repricing powerful enough to drag an entire 111-day average through the regime that contained Bitcoin’s mature terminal cycle lows. That is possible. Treating it as the obvious base case is statistically unserious. The market already fell approximately 53.6% from the October 2025 all-time high to the June 30 low. Spot then landed only $153 above the lower numerical boundary of the contemporaneous empirical corridor. Now Bitcoin has recovered to approximately $64,900 while the bears demand an additional 38%–54% execution in the basement because apparently the first liquidation of half the market was merely an appetizer. Their thesis requires Bitcoin to invalidate the June 30 confluence, destroy the developing compression structure, and sustain dramatically lower prices long enough to rewrite the moving-average regime. Maybe that happens. But “possible” and “probable” are not synonyms just because someone drew a red arrow on TradingView. The traditional Pi Cycle Top measures when Bitcoin’s medium-term trend becomes obscenely overheated relative to its structural trend. My Empirical Pi Bottom Zone measures when that medium-term trend has been methodically compressed beneath it for long enough to resemble Bitcoin’s mature terminal bear-market lows. One measures the mathematics of mania. The other measures whether the market has completed the psychological liquidation of everyone who bought the top using money they described as “basically free.” Derived from Philip Swift’s original 111/350 Pi Cycle architecture. Empirical bottom-zone calibration by Adam Livingston, 2026:

Adam Livingston

17,362 次观看 • 2 个月前

Something interesting is going to be released soon... ✨ Kitt The Inner Circle Trader "If I had to trade only one model for the rest of my life, considering everything I've publicly disclosed, my choice would be either the second stage of re-distribution in an MMSM or the second stage of re-accumulation in an MMBM. With either of these, I believe I could consistently generate substantial profits without the need to explore alternative strategies. These models rely on specific components of both the buy and sell sides of the market curve, which are directly interconnected. This isn't a matter of identifying support and resistance levels; it's about understanding the logic of order flow. In the case of the market maker sell model, I focus on identifying a pool of liquidity beneath the initial consolidation. When I spot this sellside opportunity, I patiently await a reversal. This reversal should lead to a drop of at least 50% from the smart money's reversal point down to the sellside liquidity. If it achieves this, and then begins to rally once more, I'll look to correlate it with the other side of the curve, where the market previously rallied before reversing. This will provide me with an array that initially signaled a bullish trend but now acts as a reversal indicator. This marks the second stage of distribution or redistribution, and it usually happens swiftly, pushing prices towards the sellside. In essence, I'm waiting for a unicorn setup, where all the pieces align perfectly, and I have everything in my favor. I'll risk 5% on such a trade. This approach involves re-accumulation, where the sellside drops down to 50%, and then I match it with another array to capture the reversal. Now, picture a market maker model involving a consolidation phase where relative equal lows are formed, followed by an upward rally, possibly forming a consolidation that resembles a bull flag pattern. Subsequently, it rallies out of that consolidation. Sometimes, it may create a second stage of re-accumulation as it trades towards a premium array level—a level I consider a liquidity draw. If I'm feeling bullish, I'd aim for that level. I don't necessarily need to be there at the exact moment; I might spot the opportunity later and act accordingly. If it's reacting off of a level, that should offer sellside. So, you know where sellside delivery. The market should drop down. So, I'm anticipating price reacting and reversing at the smart money reversal once it starts to break down. If it goes back up a little bit, that's the smart money reversal. Low risk sell is the next stage and then they'll drop. When we reach the low-risk sell, it's important that the drop reaches at least 50% of the total range from the smart money reversal to the sellside I'm targeting. As long as it accomplishes this, I have confidence that the subsequent rally will reach a premium array on the left side of the curve before the market makes its high and reverses. Why would it do that? Because it's part of a larger continuation. So when and how would I determine when it's going to fail ,that first leg of re-distribution on the sell side, if it doesn't pierce 50% of that range from the smart money reversal down to the sell side liquidity. If it doesn't do that, then it's not going to go down there. It's going to be a continuation of reverse and go the other way." #ict #ICT

Something interesting is going to be released soon... ✨ Kitt The Inner Circle Trader "If I had to trade only one model for the rest of my life, considering everything I've publicly disclosed, my choice would be either the second stage of re-distribution in an MMSM or the second stage of re-accumulation in an MMBM. With either of these, I believe I could consistently generate substantial profits without the need to explore alternative strategies. These models rely on specific components of both the buy and sell sides of the market curve, which are directly interconnected. This isn't a matter of identifying support and resistance levels; it's about understanding the logic of order flow. In the case of the market maker sell model, I focus on identifying a pool of liquidity beneath the initial consolidation. When I spot this sellside opportunity, I patiently await a reversal. This reversal should lead to a drop of at least 50% from the smart money's reversal point down to the sellside liquidity. If it achieves this, and then begins to rally once more, I'll look to correlate it with the other side of the curve, where the market previously rallied before reversing. This will provide me with an array that initially signaled a bullish trend but now acts as a reversal indicator. This marks the second stage of distribution or redistribution, and it usually happens swiftly, pushing prices towards the sellside. In essence, I'm waiting for a unicorn setup, where all the pieces align perfectly, and I have everything in my favor. I'll risk 5% on such a trade. This approach involves re-accumulation, where the sellside drops down to 50%, and then I match it with another array to capture the reversal. Now, picture a market maker model involving a consolidation phase where relative equal lows are formed, followed by an upward rally, possibly forming a consolidation that resembles a bull flag pattern. Subsequently, it rallies out of that consolidation. Sometimes, it may create a second stage of re-accumulation as it trades towards a premium array level—a level I consider a liquidity draw. If I'm feeling bullish, I'd aim for that level. I don't necessarily need to be there at the exact moment; I might spot the opportunity later and act accordingly. If it's reacting off of a level, that should offer sellside. So, you know where sellside delivery. The market should drop down. So, I'm anticipating price reacting and reversing at the smart money reversal once it starts to break down. If it goes back up a little bit, that's the smart money reversal. Low risk sell is the next stage and then they'll drop. When we reach the low-risk sell, it's important that the drop reaches at least 50% of the total range from the smart money reversal to the sellside I'm targeting. As long as it accomplishes this, I have confidence that the subsequent rally will reach a premium array on the left side of the curve before the market makes its high and reverses. Why would it do that? Because it's part of a larger continuation. So when and how would I determine when it's going to fail ,that first leg of re-distribution on the sell side, if it doesn't pierce 50% of that range from the smart money reversal down to the sell side liquidity. If it doesn't do that, then it's not going to go down there. It's going to be a continuation of reverse and go the other way." #ict #ICT

LumiTraders

388,546 次观看 • 3 年前

Thank you, Cde Vera, for exposing the betrayal. Every Zimbabwean must listen to this truth—Mnangagwa and ZANU-PF have abandoned the liberation cause and turned it into a personal business empire. As Cde Faith Chananda (Comrade Vera) bravely narrates, the heroes who shed blood for this country are now reduced to beggars—handed bicycles, rotten food hampers, and empty slogans in the name of “empowerment.” Meanwhile, Mnangagwa and his Zvigananda cartel loot billions, buy loyalty with cars and cash, and sow division to keep their corrupt grip on power. Let us be clear: Mnangagwa is not a liberator. He is a corrupt rogue, a national disgrace who spits on the sacrifices of the fallen. He has betrayed war veterans, betrayed the people, and betrayed the nation. While millions live in poverty, without jobs, without proper healthcare, without roads or clean water, he plots to steal more time in power through his criminal 2030 agenda. To the war veterans: you carried this nation on your backs. Do not let bicycles and food hampers be the price of your blood and sacrifice. You fought for freedom and dignity—do not allow Mnangagwa to mock you with crumbs while he builds his empire. To those still in ZANU-PF with a conscience: the party you joined to liberate Zimbabwe has been hijacked by Mnangagwa’s greed. If you remain silent while he tampers with the Constitution to extend his term beyond 2028, then you are complicit in destroying the very ideals of the struggle. The 2030 agenda is not development—it is dictatorship. It is the death of the Constitution, the betrayal of the liberation, and the enslavement of future generations. Mnangagwa must be stopped now. War veterans, ZANU-PF insiders, and all patriotic Zimbabweans must rise and declare openly: this rogue has failed, this rogue is corrupt, this rogue will not rewrite our Constitution to cling to power. Zimbabwe’s liberation cannot end in bicycles and rotten food. It must end in justice, dignity, and true freedom for the people. ZANU PF Nick Mangwana President of Zimbabwe Presidential Communications Zimbabwe 🇿🇼 dj steve easy tiger CCC Southend 🇿🇼🟨🇬🇧 LynneM 💕💝💎 Change Radio Amnesty International Zimbabwe 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐙𝐖 The Mirror Masvingo TheNewsHawks Zimbabwe Third Eye News🇿🇼 👁 The Independent Parliament of Zimbabwe Varakashi4ED Mash West Updates Varakashi4ED Zimbabwe Freedom of Expression Henry Itayi Makambe Pauline Kaseke Guzha Spencer Shorayi Padare-Enkundleni 🇿🇼 ZANU PF PATRIOTS 🇿🇼 @ZanuPFYouthLeag Ali Naka Commentary African Fadzayi Mahere🇿🇼 HON Job Wiwa Sikhala Sabhuku Temba P. Mliswa Hon Lt Gen (Rtd) Amb. AN Sanyatwe Oppah Muchinguri-Kashiri (ZANUPF Nat. Chairman) Dr A. Mutambudzi ZanuPF Treasurer General - Patrick Chinamasa TENDAI BITI Thabani Mpofu TEDIOUS MUSINACHIREVO Promise Mkwananzi Cde Chibage TINO Citizens Change Champion Chibaya

Thank you, Cde Vera, for exposing the betrayal. Every Zimbabwean must listen to this truth—Mnangagwa and ZANU-PF have abandoned the liberation cause and turned it into a personal business empire. As Cde Faith Chananda (Comrade Vera) bravely narrates, the heroes who shed blood for this country are now reduced to beggars—handed bicycles, rotten food hampers, and empty slogans in the name of “empowerment.” Meanwhile, Mnangagwa and his Zvigananda cartel loot billions, buy loyalty with cars and cash, and sow division to keep their corrupt grip on power. Let us be clear: Mnangagwa is not a liberator. He is a corrupt rogue, a national disgrace who spits on the sacrifices of the fallen. He has betrayed war veterans, betrayed the people, and betrayed the nation. While millions live in poverty, without jobs, without proper healthcare, without roads or clean water, he plots to steal more time in power through his criminal 2030 agenda. To the war veterans: you carried this nation on your backs. Do not let bicycles and food hampers be the price of your blood and sacrifice. You fought for freedom and dignity—do not allow Mnangagwa to mock you with crumbs while he builds his empire. To those still in ZANU-PF with a conscience: the party you joined to liberate Zimbabwe has been hijacked by Mnangagwa’s greed. If you remain silent while he tampers with the Constitution to extend his term beyond 2028, then you are complicit in destroying the very ideals of the struggle. The 2030 agenda is not development—it is dictatorship. It is the death of the Constitution, the betrayal of the liberation, and the enslavement of future generations. Mnangagwa must be stopped now. War veterans, ZANU-PF insiders, and all patriotic Zimbabweans must rise and declare openly: this rogue has failed, this rogue is corrupt, this rogue will not rewrite our Constitution to cling to power. Zimbabwe’s liberation cannot end in bicycles and rotten food. It must end in justice, dignity, and true freedom for the people. ZANU PF Nick Mangwana President of Zimbabwe Presidential Communications Zimbabwe 🇿🇼 dj steve easy tiger CCC Southend 🇿🇼🟨🇬🇧 LynneM 💕💝💎 Change Radio Amnesty International Zimbabwe 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐙𝐖 The Mirror Masvingo TheNewsHawks Zimbabwe Third Eye News🇿🇼 👁 The Independent Parliament of Zimbabwe Varakashi4ED Mash West Updates Varakashi4ED Zimbabwe Freedom of Expression Henry Itayi Makambe Pauline Kaseke Guzha Spencer Shorayi Padare-Enkundleni 🇿🇼 ZANU PF PATRIOTS 🇿🇼 @ZanuPFYouthLeag Ali Naka Commentary African Fadzayi Mahere🇿🇼 HON Job Wiwa Sikhala Sabhuku Temba P. Mliswa Hon Lt Gen (Rtd) Amb. AN Sanyatwe Oppah Muchinguri-Kashiri (ZANUPF Nat. Chairman) Dr A. Mutambudzi ZanuPF Treasurer General - Patrick Chinamasa TENDAI BITI Thabani Mpofu TEDIOUS MUSINACHIREVO Promise Mkwananzi Cde Chibage TINO Citizens Change Champion Chibaya

Tatenda C.K, Hungwe

36,050 次观看 • 11 个月前