I’m going to come across as nit picking again now, but thats the problem right there. The trades where you did just toss caution into the wind happend. There is no way from an outsider like myself to deduce if the trade was a genuine loss or the work of a random act of madness.
Hogarste, really nobody cares about you or I making a point. Do what ever makes you money, if you feel confortable day trading and risking 2%… do it as long as you are profitable. This ICT drama started the moment he was promoting Chris Lori and bragging about easily making 15% to 30% every single month
I recognize that you are trying to be fair, but it’s different to say that 1) I dont see anyone making money consistently using his methods vs 2) I don’t think any of his students are net profitable.
I had a huge loss going long USD/JPY that I got into one Sunday night in January after listening to a fellow discuss fundamental analysis, because I bought in at a high at a ridiculous lot amount and lost money, which is embarrassing and makes me silly, but has nothing to do with ICT’s methods in fairness. I also took a short on the E/U after ICY tweeted to folks saying that he expected price to go up, that is obviously contrary to his teachings. These are gambles. In April 2012, I just kept shorting the pound this one week over and over, because, I don’t know I was a poo head. These are clearly not ICT method related losses. They happen to be in the same account (my only account with or that has every had money in it.) If you want to assess whether ICT’s methods work, it’s just not accurate to include trades (that I think you would agree they stand out) that are unrelated to the methods. My occasional foolishness ignoring his methods should not be included in a fair assessment of his methods, if we all are really seeking truth.
I’ve let go of the conversation regarding ICT’s character. But the point in the threads has become, not only is ICT this and that, but his methods don’t work at all. That is a false statement that I feel I could prove based on my past results when I use his methods which was most of the time. That said, I have a really tough time with entries given a coupe of factors, and I am trying to find a way to make my trading work as well as I can, given my lifestyle. That might mean using some of what various people on the threads teach, (and I’ve considered S/D zones as well.) All I’m saying is that right now I can’t be awake for the London Open, which would help a lot to make his methods work, but that does not make my opinion less valid, especially as I have had some reasonable (not great not wonderful) but decent for a beginner results when I use them. I dislike the conversation having swung to an extreme (any extreme) especially that is not indicative of the truth.
I could be fairer in the way I phrased my self earlier. I probably should have said: I have no reason to believe that anyone using his methods is profitable over a significant time period. Rather than stating it like it was irrefutable. Thats my bad.
I get your point about your bad trades I would argue that some bad losses may also have become bad winners. I know i’ve been stupid and taken a bet and it’s payed out.
Probably the best way to say it is I hope your profitable but I can’t believe it without seeing a live traded positive account with no trades added or removed.
To be clear thats not suggesting you are wrong, or a liar or anything else. Thats just saying that the proof would not be reliable enough for me to make a reasonably sound conclusion.
I got what you meant and wanting to proved that ICT’s method do work and can be profitable …BUT it is not your responsibility to make anyone here to believe in it. If you want to make it work, do it for your own not because you want it to proved to the naysayer, skeptics, etc.
Continue what you are doing right now of whatever method you are using (ICT or not) because you want it to be profitable for you. Forget about pleasing other people. Focus on your own task and your own goals. The others will find their own way and strategy or start honing their own skills and that is their responsibility not yours. If they ask for your help then it’s fine you can help them but right now, you have to focus on your own trades.
All of this event is just a distraction… keep your focus, moving forward, and don’t look back 
You can flip a coin and if you are lucky you can get in a winning streak… Does that mean a coin flip works as a method?
ICT methods? are really methods?? or just tools he renamed extracted from other strategies? Does a MA works?
Remember David Jefferson? Does a 100/200 HMA crossover works?
You are looking for ICT validation, but not really trying to understand why an specific tool works in a defined environment
I thought you’d say that which was why I suggested possibly picking three winners for me to have to explain. I think that what gets me going sometimes is that while yeah I appreciate that ICT made a huge effort to teach and all that. My belief that the methods really do work is not based on blind loyalty, or an unwillingness to see my mentor tarnished, but on my assessment and experiences. From an audit perspective, your desire for proof on the subject is a reasonable thing to a good degree. I made that trading plan post this evening on this thread, and as I read it, I thought, wow this is a lot for someone to make work, and I don’t usually even utilize pivots.
I don’t have all of or many of the answers. I want to trade better and get more from it too. I’m interested in what you were doing from a high level pre-ICT as well, as it sounds like you did well. It seems like the overall subject has gone from 99-1 to 1-99 this past week, and I think it should be more like a seesaw between 70-30 and 30-70.
If you decide to respond to this, then yours will be the last word in this exchange and I will read it (in the morning) honestly think about it, and respect it, and move on. If not then that is fine also.
I think I must be mis-speaking. However I feel about ICT for being generous about video making is internal, and I openly acknowledge that some strange things went on with him. When I say ICT tools, I don’t mean ICT’s tools, as in they are owned by him. I mean tools that existed already (prior to him) that he showed me how to use. I don’t need his validation and want to understand why things work and find the relationships between the various trading styles to be very interesting. To me the relationship between using higher highs / lower lows and S/D zones is incredibly interesting.
I should have been clearer and won’t belabor my own point any more.
They weren’t really [B]his[/B] methods…lots of what he posted was word for word out of a book by Larry Williams…for starters…there could be others too. I’m probably the last person to give advise for all the “systems & methods” I’ve tried, and I’ve been chastised several times for making it more difficult/complex than it need be. The school here covers just about everything he used…fibs, divergences, correlations, chart patterns, etc. There is nothing of his to prove or make a point of! He only embelished it all. Why and with so much effort?..well a wolf in sheep’s clothing comes to mind…
Now that I’ve started trading the daily t/f (after saying that long term trading didn’t work for me and now it is…lol), if anything, I’d just report this thread to get it shut down. Really it’s only for the entertainment factor and an excuse not to go do some housework with all the extra time I have from not needing to be at the charts waiting for a “method” that may or may not materialize during one or 2 sessions. :eek:
The problem is that with ICT’s “method” or “tools” you can justify just about any trade from any position on a chart in any direction. With S/R (from any timeframe), monthly, weekly trinity, gmt/gmt+5 pivots, mid-pivots, weekly pivots, monthly pivots, 68-79% retracement from virtually any point in space (swing point, 00/50, S/R), short/medium/long-term market structure, OTE, reflection, extension. Remember each of these levels are valid +/- 15 pips either way for him and you have pretty much every single price covered with multiple “confluences”. This is not even an exaggeration. The only thing that narrowed entry down from complete randomness was his “kill zones” which he kept expanding and now almost covers the entire european session and most of NY session. When that doesn’t work he adds in the 10am judas swing.
I can randomly take a trade with my eyes closed and upon opening them immediately come up with his required minimum 3 confluences from the list above to justify that trade. His method is really no method at all.
Like I said It’s just my opinion. I hope that I didn’t come across as patronizing or holier-than-thou, if so I do apologize. My point is that your trading plan should mitigate the negative effects of cognitive biases, emotions, stress etc.
As to the “100 strategy 100 outcomes” saying, there are simply too many variables to consider. To assume that psychology is the primary culprit is a premature conclusion. If the variables are controlled, I suspect that the deviation would be minimal. Sure there would probably be outliers, but they’re insignificant.
If you’re experienced/have a good trading plan, yes i think it’s pretty much overrated.
Right now we are in an ICT reflection pattern on the EURUSD 5 min chart. With confluences of MS1, 4 Hour fractal break upwards and a 15 minute SMT divergence between GBPUSD and EURUSD bottoms.
Thats a “Valid” ICT buy signal. It’s arguable it meets the criteria for a buy scalp for his asian range scalp to get into the London open set up.
I say all this to back up your point. You can see these things virtually every candle.
Exactly. His method is no method.and he has all those tools and you can look left and apply whatever you want.
From my understanding (not from ICT because I don’t remember him saying this.) forex is about probabilities right? That’s what we trade on. So taking 5 “tools” on day and three the next and 10 Thursday isn’t gonna get you anywhere. You take four tools and look for those same four EVERYDAY. If you get a trade you get a trade. If you don’t you don’t.
What I think people miss out on is being consistent. Which has to do with psychology. So don’t bash the tools bash the people who aren’t doing it right.
I think edges are everywhere. I think they’re easy to find all you need is 50.000000000001% chance and repeat that over and over consistently to be a winner right?
The reason people fail is on them. So the variable is psychology right? This is just my opinion.
I hope no one takes my comments as mad or angry. I repeat myself ALOT but it seems like everyone is talking about the wrong stuff to me. And they do this on every ICT thread.
And I didn’t take yours as that bun.
I’m off-line for 1 week and everything changes. As someone who was following ICT I would like to say it’s a shame to see him go. I spent a lot of time getting to grips with the tools he presented and had hoped the myFxbook thread would be the final piece of the puzzle providing:
a. Evidence that one could be profitable with a select set of the tools
b. Hopefully an aha effect where all his teachings ‘clicked’
For now the evidence seams rather stacked against ITC, but there’s still a part of me that would like to see him comeback in a few months and re-open the myfxbook and show us how well he’s done without everyone eyeing his every trade (I personally could not trade like that)
yea he’s done for me unless he shows the history at least. i can almost understand real time trades being closed but the history is over the top. And if he’s really a “pro” then this stuff shouldnt get to him if he’s really mastered his “inner circle” he should be able to deal with it.
Lesson learned! Instead of putting trust in ANYONE, learn a method you are comfortable with and stick through it until it is perfected. Trust no man but yourself! I learned this the hard way. Not with ICT because I chose to perfect my own
strategy before he became popular. I’m not knocking anyone either but only sharing my two cents. I firmly believe this was a lesson well taught to many traders to learn for themselves. Now it is time to move on because this horse is dead, I think we’ve kicked it enough.
It’s great to say learn for themselves, but they need to learn from something/someone. I still do not think that ICT was trying to con anyone and he was providing useful tools. All that was missing was a [B]simple [/B]base trading strategy from which to build.
The strategy presented in his last thread was simple and I really wanted to see the results he could produce with it. I had tried something similar but only had limited success, and wanted to see it work.
Honestly the only thing I didn’t like about ICT were some of his more fanatical followers.
Well said. That’s what people should be learning from their mentor at the get-go: building one’s own trading template. Take what makes sense and what works from his materials and discard the stuff that you disagree with, then move along. The goal should be to make you into an independent trader not a copycat.
Personally I just find the way in which he dug his grave hilarious. What’s even funnier is that he’s still digging it deeper i.e. : “no losing week”, “30% this february”. I look forward to seeing how he’s going to squirm out of his predicament (or not).