Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

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...

RHerman's profile picture

Herman Trading

10,680 subscribers

26,146 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

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

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

Herman Trading

22,826 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

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

Herman Trading

14,624 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

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

Herman Trading

34,617 Aufrufe • vor 3 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?
1:25

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

Herman Trading

23,771 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?
0:41

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

Herman Trading

19,182 Aufrufe • vor 3 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?
3:36

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

53,961 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

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

Herman Trading

17,352 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

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

Herman Trading

14,813 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

I tested my Intelligent Balance Indicator during the slowest session of the day - ASIA. The result surprised me. You asked if it works during Asia as well as it does during New York. So I tested it. Even during slower sessions like Asia, the indicator can still identify the more probable direction of the price move with impressive accuracy. That is the edge. You do not need to predict every candle. You do not need to chase random moves. Let the indicator show you the more probable direction. Then use your favorite trade entry model towards that side. Same indicator. Different session. Same probability-driven approach. Watch the video and judge for yourself. Trade with probabilities. Not predictions. Should I test London next?
2:32

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

Herman Trading

14,652 Aufrufe • vor 3 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
1:02

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 4 Monaten

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

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

Herman Trading

29,991 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Warren Buffett says using leverage is foolish. Why risk what you have and need to chase what you do not have and do not need? No matter the odds, if the downside is everything, do not do it. He is right. But real estate is a different game. That rule is built for paper. Pull up Sam Zell or the other people I follow, and you get a completely different answer. Here is the real difference. Paper is paper. Real estate is control. I do not love the paper world. I do not like the volatility, and I do not feel like I can control it. Control is the whole thing. I control the debt I take on. The interest rate. The monthly payment. And I never over-leverage. I control the apartments too. The occupancy. The expenses. The rents, to the extent the market lets me. Paper gives me none of that. I do not understand it well enough to control it, and it does not have the predictability real estate does. Now the harder question. If I paid everything off and sat on 600 million debt-free, would my life really change versus 1.5 billion with 900 million in debt? Honestly, no. I do not personally need more. But that is not what this is about anymore. I am running a legacy play now. My kids are involved. This is succession. He is not wrong about leverage. It just depends on what you can actually control.
2:54

Warren Buffett says using leverage is foolish. Why risk what you have and need to chase what you do not have and do not need? No matter the odds, if the downside is everything, do not do it. He is right. But real estate is a different game. That rule is built for paper. Pull up Sam Zell or the other people I follow, and you get a completely different answer. Here is the real difference. Paper is paper. Real estate is control. I do not love the paper world. I do not like the volatility, and I do not feel like I can control it. Control is the whole thing. I control the debt I take on. The interest rate. The monthly payment. And I never over-leverage. I control the apartments too. The occupancy. The expenses. The rents, to the extent the market lets me. Paper gives me none of that. I do not understand it well enough to control it, and it does not have the predictability real estate does. Now the harder question. If I paid everything off and sat on 600 million debt-free, would my life really change versus 1.5 billion with 900 million in debt? Honestly, no. I do not personally need more. But that is not what this is about anymore. I am running a legacy play now. My kids are involved. This is succession. He is not wrong about leverage. It just depends on what you can actually control.

Ken McElroy

12,472 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

'They were told not only did they not need the surgery, the child didn’t even have the condition. Didn’t even have the condition. Let that sink in. That is what is happening to the children of Ireland. And I say this: there is not enough urgency in government.'
0:30

'They were told not only did they not need the surgery, the child didn’t even have the condition. Didn’t even have the condition. Let that sink in. That is what is happening to the children of Ireland. And I say this: there is not enough urgency in government.'

The Ditch

100,587 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

This is the PERFECT example of why foreigners should not be allowed to run for office Zul Mohammed just ran for Mayor of Carrollton, Texas. He’s from Pakistan “No vet has made any sacrifice. I want to make that clear. I do not support the US military. No, I do not support the United States. I look down on both entities. I want to make that clear” I can’t think of a better example of why only natural born citizens should be allowed to run for office Also he is a Muslim, which further enforces the classic “I do not support the United States” We need new election eligibility laws
0:24

This is the PERFECT example of why foreigners should not be allowed to run for office Zul Mohammed just ran for Mayor of Carrollton, Texas. He’s from Pakistan “No vet has made any sacrifice. I want to make that clear. I do not support the US military. No, I do not support the United States. I look down on both entities. I want to make that clear” I can’t think of a better example of why only natural born citizens should be allowed to run for office Also he is a Muslim, which further enforces the classic “I do not support the United States” We need new election eligibility laws

Wall Street Apes

2,448,865 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Atlas: "Fauci at one point said, ‘One of the problems is the public is not afraid enough.’ I was shocked... I said, ‘Can you repeat that?’ He said, ‘The people are not afraid enough, so they won't listen.’ ... I said, ‘It's unethical to use fear in an emergency to manipulate people.’"
1:37

Atlas: "Fauci at one point said, ‘One of the problems is the public is not afraid enough.’ I was shocked... I said, ‘Can you repeat that?’ He said, ‘The people are not afraid enough, so they won't listen.’ ... I said, ‘It's unethical to use fear in an emergency to manipulate people.’"

The Independent with Scott Atlas

304,928 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Georgia voter to Fox: I have watched Harris rallies and Trump rallies. What I see is one side is talking about things that would impact me and one side is not. And that is why I have made the decision to vote for Kamala Harris
0:39

Georgia voter to Fox: I have watched Harris rallies and Trump rallies. What I see is one side is talking about things that would impact me and one side is not. And that is why I have made the decision to vote for Kamala Harris

Headquarters

1,502,577 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Mark Zuckerberg reveals the hiring rule he uses at Meta "I have this hiring heuristic at Meta: I will only hire someone to work for me if I could see myself working for them. Not that I want them to run the company, but in an alternate universe, if it was their company, would I be happy to go work for them?" "Everyone always says don't compromise on quality, but there's this question of how do you know someone is good enough. My answer is: I would want someone on my team if I would work for them"
0:45

Mark Zuckerberg reveals the hiring rule he uses at Meta "I have this hiring heuristic at Meta: I will only hire someone to work for me if I could see myself working for them. Not that I want them to run the company, but in an alternate universe, if it was their company, would I be happy to go work for them?" "Everyone always says don't compromise on quality, but there's this question of how do you know someone is good enough. My answer is: I would want someone on my team if I would work for them"

Jaynit

221,738 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

This is who Mike McDaniel is. He’s an offensive mastermind that acknowledges this is the players moment in history but wants to do everything he can to better them. I can’t stress enough that there is 1, and only 1 candidate that I want for this team.
1:24

This is who Mike McDaniel is. He’s an offensive mastermind that acknowledges this is the players moment in history but wants to do everything he can to better them. I can’t stress enough that there is 1, and only 1 candidate that I want for this team.

That Hurts

990,858 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

The expiration date is everything in options trading. Too short = not enough time for your trade to play out. Too long = you’re paying more than you need to. See how I think about expiration when I’m trading QQQ.
0:41

The expiration date is everything in options trading. Too short = not enough time for your trade to play out. Too long = you’re paying more than you need to. See how I think about expiration when I’m trading QQQ.

Sunia

11,135 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten