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。

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 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

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

34,617 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

Most traders don’t need better entries. They need to stop trading the wrong side. A sweep is not enough. An iFVG is not enough. CISD is not enough. MSS is not enough. All of them can appear in both directions. That is why I use Intelligent Balance. Before I look for entry, I want one answer: Which side is MORE PROBABLE? If Intelligent Balance shows LONGS (76% on this example), I only hunt longs. If it shows SHORTS, I only hunt shorts. Everything against that bias is noise. The indicator gives me direction. Price action gives me entry. Risk management handles the trade. Retail asks: “Where do I enter?” I ask: “Which side should I even be trading?” That is the difference. Would this one rule simplify your trading?

Most traders don’t need better entries. They need to stop trading the wrong side. A sweep is not enough. An iFVG is not enough. CISD is not enough. MSS is not enough. All of them can appear in both directions. That is why I use Intelligent Balance. Before I look for entry, I want one answer: Which side is MORE PROBABLE? If Intelligent Balance shows LONGS (76% on this example), I only hunt longs. If it shows SHORTS, I only hunt shorts. Everything against that bias is noise. The indicator gives me direction. Price action gives me entry. Risk management handles the trade. Retail asks: “Where do I enter?” I ask: “Which side should I even be trading?” That is the difference. Would this one rule simplify your trading?

Herman Trading

26,146 次观看 • 2 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 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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

53,856 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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)

12,264 次观看 • 7 个月前

Have you ever fallen for this trap? During Thursday night’s Asia session, I shorted the rejection of CP, targeting the prior session’s swing low near 31,100, which also aligned with a large resting order on Bookmap. Unfortunately, I closed this trade with only $700 profit. Because I overlooked one major detail… Thursday’s high had not yet been swept. Instead of selling off, price reversed higher and took that liquidity during Friday’s pre-market. That move convinced me the market had turned bullish, so I abandoned my original bearish plan. Think about how absurd that is! I was bearish before the buy-side liquidity was taken, then became bullish after it was taken. The market actually tricked me, but this is what happens when I become complacent and don’t write down a solid plan before the session. Things start going well, I convince myself that I don’t need one and then I make the most absurd mistakes.

Have you ever fallen for this trap? During Thursday night’s Asia session, I shorted the rejection of CP, targeting the prior session’s swing low near 31,100, which also aligned with a large resting order on Bookmap. Unfortunately, I closed this trade with only $700 profit. Because I overlooked one major detail… Thursday’s high had not yet been swept. Instead of selling off, price reversed higher and took that liquidity during Friday’s pre-market. That move convinced me the market had turned bullish, so I abandoned my original bearish plan. Think about how absurd that is! I was bearish before the buy-side liquidity was taken, then became bullish after it was taken. The market actually tricked me, but this is what happens when I become complacent and don’t write down a solid plan before the session. Things start going well, I convince myself that I don’t need one and then I make the most absurd mistakes.

Stefany

20,940 次观看 • 14 天前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前