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.

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?show more

Herman Trading

10,002 subscribers

14,624 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

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?

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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

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 1 Monat

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 2 Monaten

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

23,742 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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 1 Monat

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 2 Monaten

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 example: Time range: 8:00–9:00am Market: NQ Timeframe: 1min Edge: 86% Rule: trade ONLY towards the more probable side No guessing. No forcing both directions. No “maybe long, maybe short”. If the model shows 60%+ LONGS, I am not interested in shorts. If the model shows 60%+ SHORTS, I am not interested in longs. Direction first. Entry second. This is the sauce. Would you rather trade the chart… or the probability behind the chart?

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 example: Time range: 8:00–9:00am Market: NQ Timeframe: 1min Edge: 86% Rule: trade ONLY towards the more probable side No guessing. No forcing both directions. No “maybe long, maybe short”. If the model shows 60%+ LONGS, I am not interested in shorts. If the model shows 60%+ SHORTS, I am not interested in longs. Direction first. Entry second. This is the sauce. Would you rather trade the chart… or the probability behind the chart?

Herman Trading

53,746 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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

14,648 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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.

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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?

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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”?

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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?

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 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 2 Monaten

I just closed a quick $73.8K trade—but not before nearly botching the whole thing. I set my take profit at 212.70 instead of 212.776. When price started dropping fast, I had to manually close all my positions with speedy fingers before hitting the wrong TP level. lol. Let me break down the trade setup: Price was bearish, then we got a market shift signalling a potential bullish move on the 15-minute structure. After price mitigated the supply zone and created a failed reaction, I knew we had a flip + sweep zone forming. Price pushed hard to the upside, but gravity eventually pulled it back down. I saw bearish momentum forming and knew price was gravitating toward the extreme demand zone below. Instead of waiting for a buy setup (which would happen during New York session—not my time), I decided to trade the pullback itself. Here’s how I entered: I waited for a huge bearish candle, then watched for price to pull back slightly. That pullback created my supply zone. When price mitigated that zone and created a lower high—boom, that's where I entered. Overall thoughts: Honestly, I rate this trade 5/10. Not perfect. I rushed the entry and couldn't use my normal platform. Some positions even filled at non-ideal prices. But here's what I did right: proper stop loss placement and taking profit at the exact point where demand would step in. — This is just one setup from my complete trading framework. I also cover how to spot market shifts before they happen, the exact 3 timeframes I use to confirm every trade, and how to identify high-probability supply and demand zones for entries. Just comment "FRAMEWORK" and I'll send you the full breakdown in your DMs.

I just closed a quick $73.8K trade—but not before nearly botching the whole thing. I set my take profit at 212.70 instead of 212.776. When price started dropping fast, I had to manually close all my positions with speedy fingers before hitting the wrong TP level. lol. Let me break down the trade setup: Price was bearish, then we got a market shift signalling a potential bullish move on the 15-minute structure. After price mitigated the supply zone and created a failed reaction, I knew we had a flip + sweep zone forming. Price pushed hard to the upside, but gravity eventually pulled it back down. I saw bearish momentum forming and knew price was gravitating toward the extreme demand zone below. Instead of waiting for a buy setup (which would happen during New York session—not my time), I decided to trade the pullback itself. Here’s how I entered: I waited for a huge bearish candle, then watched for price to pull back slightly. That pullback created my supply zone. When price mitigated that zone and created a lower high—boom, that's where I entered. Overall thoughts: Honestly, I rate this trade 5/10. Not perfect. I rushed the entry and couldn't use my normal platform. Some positions even filled at non-ideal prices. But here's what I did right: proper stop loss placement and taking profit at the exact point where demand would step in. — This is just one setup from my complete trading framework. I also cover how to spot market shifts before they happen, the exact 3 timeframes I use to confirm every trade, and how to identify high-probability supply and demand zones for entries. Just comment "FRAMEWORK" and I'll send you the full breakdown in your DMs.

The Trading Geek (Brad Goh)

12,224 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

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

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

21,032 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 1 Monat

I posted the target BEFORE price got there. 75.8%+ probability. At 8:10am NY time I posted the exact New York bias from my indicators: LOWER prices towards London low. 20 minutes later? Price traded directly into it. This is why trading with probabilities changes everything. When you already know where the odds are leaning BEFORE execution… decision-making becomes completely different. Trade with probabilities. Not predictions. Would you trade differently if you already knew where the odds were leaning before New York open? #NQ #ICT #Trading

I posted the target BEFORE price got there. 75.8%+ probability. At 8:10am NY time I posted the exact New York bias from my indicators: LOWER prices towards London low. 20 minutes later? Price traded directly into it. This is why trading with probabilities changes everything. When you already know where the odds are leaning BEFORE execution… decision-making becomes completely different. Trade with probabilities. Not predictions. Would you trade differently if you already knew where the odds were leaning before New York open? #NQ #ICT #Trading

Herman Trading

12,530 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

This is the market outlook I posted last Sunday in my private group. Was I two-sided on any price action, or was the bias given clearly one-sided? Watch the video on the analysis I gave for NQ, GOLD, CAD Futures & EU, then check your charts to see what happened this week.

This is the market outlook I posted last Sunday in my private group. Was I two-sided on any price action, or was the bias given clearly one-sided? Watch the video on the analysis I gave for NQ, GOLD, CAD Futures & EU, then check your charts to see what happened this week.

The MMXM Trader

54,891 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

NY sweeps both sides of the overnight range less than 45% of the time. Every scenario. Every year. 3,785 days. -London engulfs Asia - NY takes both sides 44.13% of the time. -London partial bullish: 37.07%. -London partial bearish: 34.40%. Most traders draw overnight highs and lows and assume NY will eventually touch both. The data says that assumption is wrong more than half the time in every single session scenario. NY does not sweep everything. It picks a side. Usually one. Occasionally both. The traders waiting for a double sweep before committing to a direction are not being disciplined. They are waiting for something that statistically does not happen on most days. The edge is not in waiting for NY to confirm both sides. It is in identifying which single side has the higher probability before it gets taken. How often does waiting for a second liquidity sweep cost you the actual trade?

NY sweeps both sides of the overnight range less than 45% of the time. Every scenario. Every year. 3,785 days. -London engulfs Asia - NY takes both sides 44.13% of the time. -London partial bullish: 37.07%. -London partial bearish: 34.40%. Most traders draw overnight highs and lows and assume NY will eventually touch both. The data says that assumption is wrong more than half the time in every single session scenario. NY does not sweep everything. It picks a side. Usually one. Occasionally both. The traders waiting for a double sweep before committing to a direction are not being disciplined. They are waiting for something that statistically does not happen on most days. The edge is not in waiting for NY to confirm both sides. It is in identifying which single side has the higher probability before it gets taken. How often does waiting for a second liquidity sweep cost you the actual trade?

Herman Trading

16,757 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten