My issue with the "liquidity" thing is that there's technically liquidity at every high and low so the market can go up OR down from wherever - so it's arbitrary.
Exactly!!! Its been more than 1 year now I'm still not able to make sense out of it! I mean as you said... liquidity is everywhere! Then how TF do you trade?
Nice. Can you explain highly correlated pairs using supply and demand, market randomness or buying/selling pressure? Couldnt quite get it on my own. Thanks.
Thank you Sam for implementing the common sense to these theories. If there is the Ruling Algorithm, one algorithm to rule them all, who is this Sauron to benefit from? As you said this market is decentralized so there are different group of interests. The best I can propose is that some algorithm representing big money is "testing the waters" what some people could imagine would be "grabbing liquidity" but if the algo doesn't go through some level and price goes back, it immediately withdraws and the price bounces back even more quickly.
Ahah lol. Yes it’s a very complex process and the issue is people look at one, or even hundreds of historical examples and think that equals future results which is not the case. There are so many variables at work, narrowing it down to one central theory makes no sense, BUT to traders who are struggling with how complicated the markets are, someone coming along with a really simple theory is very attractive to their minds (I was also in this group lol)
the "theory" of why smc concepts work is impossible to know (doubtful tbh) but the actual application works. been trading ict/smc for years and been profitable with only that and nothing else . supply and demand "theory" is bs too but the application can work.
Totally agree, this is the main point I’m trying to get across. Almost ANY technicals CAN work, I just hate seeing people act like SMC is magic or superior or that it’s how the market move, because that part is straight BS. Love 🙏🏼
@@PsychFXofficial you can't think technical analysis works and smc doesn't. you can look at tech analysis with the same scrutiny and find the same issues. no point in criticizing it in the first place
I think you misunderstood my points. Me saying anything CAN work is a specific statement. I put “CAN” in caps because all technicals have the same fundamental faults, whether it’s SMC or any other technical system, therefore my point is that they need something OTHER than just technicals to provide a statistically significant edge. This is why I focus so much on what I refer to as picking the right environment for technicals to work.
I agree with everything in this video. Another component to this is the fundmental interaction with the market by various counterparties and capital efficiency of the product being traded. For eample in the fx market a lot of traders that arent backed by institutional money are trading with artificially high leverage using CFDs and are trading against their own margin provider. The intraction has no effect on actual price in a lot of cases outside of the spread mechanics of the liquidity provider. In the futures market price isn't even a factor for the cost of participation. Most futures contracts are fixed margin and all of this has the potential to produce inefficiencies in the market outside of price alone with regards to the auction process. In the options market amongst tickers that have a lot of retail traffic, market makers will purposefully overprice products because those participants are interacting at the market and arent actually pricing the product thats being traded (Barclays publicly said they were doing this suring the pandemic and it produced higher returns). So there is slight retail targeting but its not about liquidity thats observable through geometric patters on the chart, its fundamentally generated through the process in which you are interacting with the marketplace.
These are fantastic points and very true. I’ve seen the Barclay retail option volume exploit plan, and as you’ve said it’s based on the impact of traders on measurable elements of the market, not directly stop hunting as you’ve said. Thank you for taking the time to write this, absolutely brilliant. Also the note about CFDs is highly important and I didn’t mention it so I appreciate it, CFDs don’t even interact directly with the market yet is what the overwhelming majority of retail traders use - fantastic :))
would be great to show us how proprietary trading works (contemporary, in the past,..) based on empirical studies. I really love this fact based content!
That’s a great idea thank you! :) is there any specific type of proprietary history you’re interested in? Because a traditional proprietary trading firm is very different to the new age / modern ones like FTMO, etc.
@@PsychFXofficial well, would appreciate both. I believe the history of proprietary trading is interesting enough (Volcker rule could be mentioned as well). However modern props are also revolutionary in some way. So explaining both environments and maybe doing a comparison would be just perfect!
your advice about trying to focus on enviornment rather than technicals actually got me funded with a nice 2k payout , hopefully its not luck and im on the come up
@@PsychFXofficial i could write a book on how i trade but to keep it simple dont fight the trend but also dont look for a trend when its not obviously trending if you need to guess if its going up or down thats not a trend,
Very cool that you made a video to back up your last video with factual evidence. That is the way to go. Everyone can have an opinion (far too many have one). But searching for scientific evidence to back up their claims is something too few people do. I will definetely have a look into the papers you have mentioned here
Ahh I appreciate it :) yes I feel the same way, way too many opinions out there. It’s just crazy to me how easily people can get manipulated by false information it’s such a shame. Yeh look into those papers let me know what you think ! :)
Find whatever works for you, you’re not short on options of what to choose! However I wouldn’t say that’s a totally fair statement, as many systems take time to adapt with, rather than it works out the box, unless they are 100% systematic, but even then the knowledge of how to adapt them to changing market conditions takes thinking and therefore means humans need time to adapt
tbh all trading concepts are bullshit even supply and demand and support and resistance, but some how it works for people and they make money off it so thats all that matters
Yes most technicals are bullshit, as always it show they are used that’s important. Risk management can provide an edge, fundamentals can, sentiment can. However technicals alone are extremely limited
Attack you? No interest in that. I said SMC manipulates people by deceiving with a story based on lies. I think the key difference you’re discounting is that I’m making points based off evidence and science wherever I can. I’m not selling a lie. I’m as transparent as possible. This is VERY different to using lies to deliberately deceive.
Watched both videos and could write a book of comment but... if other technical analysis don't work, why attack mainly SMC? You could be like a cath christian that leaves the congregation to start his/her own church but needs christaians and looks for them by critisizing the cath congre. So if there is more than SMC or tech analsis as you say and you already know the "more" as it seems (cause you already marketing it), how did you know about it? My Point: if there is more as u say and seem to know of it, why not just teach it without involving other systems? (Must you paint other systems to sell your own?). MInd you, I'm not a christian of any trading system.
Ok well let’s break this down. I attacked SMC directly because it’s the most extreme personification of the problem presented in the trading space. Your point about me essentially using controversy to further my own cause would make sense if I wasn’t completely transparent about everything. The entire point of this video was to highlight the issues and lies in order to prevent deception. If someone chooses to understand my point of view further, I believe that’s their choice to do that. Unlike everyone else, I’m not selling a dream, I always go to extreme lengths to show trading is challenging, so I feel your assessment is rather harsh. Why not teach my system instead of others? I do so not really sure what you mean here.
@@PsychFXofficial apologies if I sound harsh. Really! I apologize. Let me ask you: if people are doing things in a particular way (whether it work for them or not) and then you come and tell them their 'way' is not the 'right way' without giving them them the 'right way', what good have you done? Tell me. I don't know your purpose actually. To make money in this space or to be another legendary guru (that is private knowledge tho!). If it makes money majority of the time, why need science to prove it? You need money or proof? 😂😂😂. So the essence for back testing a concept for 10000 data samples is just to prove it is wrong? At the same time you will say your own 'scientific sys' is not also 100% (or is it?) If not 100%, then what are we looking for? Think/chose: money or scientific proof? I know, whether clean/dirty, if you don't drag SMC very well, your own concept will not 'boom'. Not immediately anyways. It will take time on its own. You need an audience and to have it, you are doing what you are doing.
To be honest I’m not thinking about it this deeply. I make videos I think some people will find valuable. Not every video will hit or be liked by everyone and that’s 100% ok. I showed the wrong way in this videos, but I would probably agree with you if every video I’ve ever made only focuses on what’s wrong. I feel you’ve just looked at one video and assumed I only ever focus on problems. I’d be pretty disappointed if I followed a channel and all they ever talked about were things that work. I firmly believe a full depth of knowledge comes from understanding the good and the bad. That’s all really. What good have I done? If someone believes something that isn’t true, and I can help them see that what they believe is false, I don’t see how that isn’t valuable to them, and science is the best way to do that. I haven’t seen any other trader using facts to express their opinions, I believe that’s a powerful tool. However I respect your opinion and wish you the best
My issue with the "liquidity" thing is that there's technically liquidity at every high and low so the market can go up OR down from wherever - so it's arbitrary.
There isn’t just liquidity there, there’s liquidity EVERYWHERE. Makes it twice as ridiculous
right its all arbitrary
Exactly
Exactly!!! Its been more than 1 year now I'm still not able to make sense out of it! I mean as you said... liquidity is everywhere! Then how TF do you trade?
Nice. Can you explain highly correlated pairs using supply and demand, market randomness or buying/selling pressure? Couldnt quite get it on my own. Thanks.
Thank you Sam for implementing the common sense to these theories. If there is the Ruling Algorithm, one algorithm to rule them all, who is this Sauron to benefit from? As you said this market is decentralized so there are different group of interests.
The best I can propose is that some algorithm representing big money is "testing the waters" what some people could imagine would be "grabbing liquidity" but if the algo doesn't go through some level and price goes back, it immediately withdraws and the price bounces back even more quickly.
Ahah lol. Yes it’s a very complex process and the issue is people look at one, or even hundreds of historical examples and think that equals future results which is not the case. There are so many variables at work, narrowing it down to one central theory makes no sense, BUT to traders who are struggling with how complicated the markets are, someone coming along with a really simple theory is very attractive to their minds (I was also in this group lol)
the "theory" of why smc concepts work is impossible to know (doubtful tbh) but the actual application works. been trading ict/smc for years and been profitable with only that and nothing else . supply and demand "theory" is bs too but the application can work.
Totally agree, this is the main point I’m trying to get across. Almost ANY technicals CAN work, I just hate seeing people act like SMC is magic or superior or that it’s how the market move, because that part is straight BS. Love 🙏🏼
@@PsychFXofficial you can't think technical analysis works and smc doesn't. you can look at tech analysis with the same scrutiny and find the same issues. no point in criticizing it in the first place
I think you misunderstood my points. Me saying anything CAN work is a specific statement. I put “CAN” in caps because all technicals have the same fundamental faults, whether it’s SMC or any other technical system, therefore my point is that they need something OTHER than just technicals to provide a statistically significant edge. This is why I focus so much on what I refer to as picking the right environment for technicals to work.
I agree with everything in this video. Another component to this is the fundmental interaction with the market by various counterparties and capital efficiency of the product being traded. For eample in the fx market a lot of traders that arent backed by institutional money are trading with artificially high leverage using CFDs and are trading against their own margin provider. The intraction has no effect on actual price in a lot of cases outside of the spread mechanics of the liquidity provider. In the futures market price isn't even a factor for the cost of participation. Most futures contracts are fixed margin and all of this has the potential to produce inefficiencies in the market outside of price alone with regards to the auction process. In the options market amongst tickers that have a lot of retail traffic, market makers will purposefully overprice products because those participants are interacting at the market and arent actually pricing the product thats being traded (Barclays publicly said they were doing this suring the pandemic and it produced higher returns). So there is slight retail targeting but its not about liquidity thats observable through geometric patters on the chart, its fundamentally generated through the process in which you are interacting with the marketplace.
These are fantastic points and very true. I’ve seen the Barclay retail option volume exploit plan, and as you’ve said it’s based on the impact of traders on measurable elements of the market, not directly stop hunting as you’ve said. Thank you for taking the time to write this, absolutely brilliant. Also the note about CFDs is highly important and I didn’t mention it so I appreciate it, CFDs don’t even interact directly with the market yet is what the overwhelming majority of retail traders use - fantastic :))
would be great to show us how proprietary trading works (contemporary, in the past,..) based on empirical studies. I really love this fact based content!
That’s a great idea thank you! :) is there any specific type of proprietary history you’re interested in? Because a traditional proprietary trading firm is very different to the new age / modern ones like FTMO, etc.
@@PsychFXofficial well, would appreciate both. I believe the history of proprietary trading is interesting enough (Volcker rule could be mentioned as well). However modern props are also revolutionary in some way. So explaining both environments and maybe doing a comparison would be just perfect!
Would be nice if you put in the description a link to that pdf / google doc / document...
your advice about trying to focus on enviornment rather than technicals actually got me funded with a nice 2k payout , hopefully its not luck and im on the come up
Hey! So happy to hear that :) congratulations. How are you implementing it specifically?
@@PsychFXofficial i could write a book on how i trade but to keep it simple dont fight the trend but also dont look for a trend when its not obviously trending if you need to guess if its going up or down thats not a trend,
Nice, if it works for you that’s the main thing. Good for you 🙏🏼🙏🏼
Very cool that you made a video to back up your last video with factual evidence. That is the way to go. Everyone can have an opinion (far too many have one). But searching for scientific evidence to back up their claims is something too few people do. I will definetely have a look into the papers you have mentioned here
Ahh I appreciate it :) yes I feel the same way, way too many opinions out there. It’s just crazy to me how easily people can get manipulated by false information it’s such a shame. Yeh look into those papers let me know what you think ! :)
My opinion is that every strategy that doesn't work for me specifically is absolute BS
Find whatever works for you, you’re not short on options of what to choose! However I wouldn’t say that’s a totally fair statement, as many systems take time to adapt with, rather than it works out the box, unless they are 100% systematic, but even then the knowledge of how to adapt them to changing market conditions takes thinking and therefore means humans need time to adapt
tbh all trading concepts are bullshit even supply and demand and support and resistance, but some how it works for people and they make money off it so thats all that matters
Yes most technicals are bullshit, as always it show they are used that’s important. Risk management can provide an edge, fundamentals can, sentiment can. However technicals alone are extremely limited
yet somehow you dont know a single person on a personal level who consistently makes a living from it
@@drek273 that doesn’t change the fact that people make money from all types of concepts in trading😂😂😂
@@GoldenFX-215 how do you know they're not lying? youre laughing but we literally laugh at you guys. youre the joke
@@drek273wtf are you talking about you must be bored to start a argument in a RUclips comment section😂😂😂
🥶
🙏🏼
Great insights..next you will say alien's are not real just kidding 😂😂keep up
Ahahah maybe I am an alien…. 👽👀👀
By the way what you said is just how SMC sold their market: by painting other systems. That is what you are doing.
Attack me how you want😅
Attack you? No interest in that. I said SMC manipulates people by deceiving with a story based on lies. I think the key difference you’re discounting is that I’m making points based off evidence and science wherever I can. I’m not selling a lie. I’m as transparent as possible. This is VERY different to using lies to deliberately deceive.
@@PsychFXofficial accepted you are showing their lies. I will be waiting for your truth
Watched both videos and could write a book of comment but... if other technical analysis don't work, why attack mainly SMC? You could be like a cath christian that leaves the congregation to start his/her own church but needs christaians and looks for them by critisizing the cath congre. So if there is more than SMC or tech analsis as you say and you already know the "more" as it seems (cause you already marketing it), how did you know about it?
My Point: if there is more as u say and seem to know of it, why not just teach it without involving other systems? (Must you paint other systems to sell your own?). MInd you, I'm not a christian of any trading system.
Ok well let’s break this down. I attacked SMC directly because it’s the most extreme personification of the problem presented in the trading space.
Your point about me essentially using controversy to further my own cause would make sense if I wasn’t completely transparent about everything. The entire point of this video was to highlight the issues and lies in order to prevent deception. If someone chooses to understand my point of view further, I believe that’s their choice to do that. Unlike everyone else, I’m not selling a dream, I always go to extreme lengths to show trading is challenging, so I feel your assessment is rather harsh.
Why not teach my system instead of others? I do so not really sure what you mean here.
@@PsychFXofficial apologies if I sound harsh. Really! I apologize. Let me ask you: if people are doing things in a particular way (whether it work for them or not) and then you come and tell them their 'way' is not the 'right way' without giving them them the 'right way', what good have you done? Tell me. I don't know your purpose actually. To make money in this space or to be another legendary guru (that is private knowledge tho!). If it makes money majority of the time, why need science to prove it? You need money or proof? 😂😂😂. So the essence for back testing a concept for 10000 data samples is just to prove it is wrong? At the same time you will say your own 'scientific sys' is not also 100% (or is it?) If not 100%, then what are we looking for? Think/chose: money or scientific proof? I know, whether clean/dirty, if you don't drag SMC very well, your own concept will not 'boom'. Not immediately anyways. It will take time on its own. You need an audience and to have it, you are doing what you are doing.
To be honest I’m not thinking about it this deeply. I make videos I think some people will find valuable. Not every video will hit or be liked by everyone and that’s 100% ok. I showed the wrong way in this videos, but I would probably agree with you if every video I’ve ever made only focuses on what’s wrong. I feel you’ve just looked at one video and assumed I only ever focus on problems. I’d be pretty disappointed if I followed a channel and all they ever talked about were things that work. I firmly believe a full depth of knowledge comes from understanding the good and the bad. That’s all really. What good have I done? If someone believes something that isn’t true, and I can help them see that what they believe is false, I don’t see how that isn’t valuable to them, and science is the best way to do that. I haven’t seen any other trader using facts to express their opinions, I believe that’s a powerful tool. However I respect your opinion and wish you the best
Start teaching the way forward oga. Don't come and give/show a problem and don't give/propose a solution.
Why would I squeeze everything into one video?
@@PsychFXofficial I will be following then