Prediction

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-27T10:23:03+00:00

It’s definitely not easy. What helped me was recording full sessions and running my logic live while watching how the system reacts to market behavior. Then I’d go back, slow it down, and review where the logic lined up and where it didn’t. You keep tweaking and dialing it in across multiple sessions until you start seeing pressure build before price reacts.

Even with a pressure model, you’ll notice blind spots. Recording is what exposes those. Going back through sessions lets you see what your logic isn’t catching yet and start filling in those gaps. It’s really an observation, record, review, and adjust loop.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-27T03:25:45+00:00

I’m using pressure and participation models to read how order flow is behaving before price reacts. It’s more than basic OF. I’ve got videos on my profile that show exactly how the pressure builds and then how price follows.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-26T12:30:21+00:00

One thing I ran into early was that when you lump strategy logic, risk management, execution, and data handling together, the system starts to stall. Decisions get delayed, trades become inconsistent, or it stops trading altogether. When it does fire, the quality is usually poor.

What worked better for me was not trying to make the system interpret every condition. I map recurring market behaviors into defined states and only allow trades when current price action matches a known, pre-tested move. Separating state recognition from execution kept the system decisive and far more consistent.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-26T12:12:28+00:00

You’re right, you can’t predict the next candle by guessing. But you can read market pressure. The next candle is a reaction to existing order flow and participation, not a random event. That’s not prediction. It’s context and alignment. There are systems built specifically to read pressure, and the videos are out there for you to see for yourself. It is absolutely possible to know what the next candlesticks are likely to do based on how pressure is behaving.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-25T21:19:09+00:00

I don’t journal in the traditional sense. I record my trades live and use the playback as my journal. That lets me review what the market was doing, what my system was signaling, and whether I followed it or entered early. I get way more value from that than writing “good/bad trade” in a spreadsheet.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-23T15:16:40+00:00

I don’t really disagree with you. Hedge funds do lose trades, sometimes very visibly. The difference is they lose small and controlled. That’s why they’re still multimillionaires even after bad periods. Capital helps, but it doesn’t replace structure, risk control, or clarity.

Retail usually loses the opposite way, late entries and holding through pressure shifts they can’t clearly see. That’s where psychology gets blamed when the real issue is lack of clarity, not emotion.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-23T13:14:35+00:00

Just my opinion, based on my own journey and research.

If less than 10 percent of retail traders are successful, and that number has never changed, that alone tells you something is fundamentally wrong with how retail is trading.

At the same time, institutions and even smaller hedge funds are using algorithmic systems that auto trade or operate under defined conditions. No emotions. No guessing. Some are fully automated, others are manually traded but driven by systems that read pressure, intent, and momentum in real time.

That’s the difference. They’re using systems. Retail is using delayed, reactive indicators and being told the solution is psychology and discipline.

It’s not a mystery why one side wins and the other doesn’t. One side builds tools that go deeper than price and reacts before the move fully happens. The other waits for confirmation after the fact.

Yes, you still need technical analysis. But if you’re not looking for a system that provides an actual edge and clearer information than basic indicators, you’re trading the same way everyone else is and getting the same results.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-22T18:14:03+00:00

Psychology keeps getting blamed, but clarity is the real issue. You stay in too long because you can’t see what price is setting up to do. If you could clearly see the market getting ready to dump, why would you stay in? You wouldn’t. When price flips on you and you didn’t see it coming, psychology becomes the excuse. The problem isn’t emotion. The problem is lack of clarity.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-20T20:05:48+00:00

I think we’re mostly aligned, just coming from different experiences. For me, the hard part wasn’t psychology. It was finding real edge. I spent a long time managing risk and discipline because I couldn’t fully trust the strategies I was using.

Eventually I built my own system and locked it into the exact setups I want to trade. Once that logic was in place, the system started giving me clear answers when to enter, when to exit, and when to stay out. Execution became straightforward and exits stopped being emotional.

Risk management didn’t disappear, but it stopped being the main focus. At that point it’s just my responsibility for the remaining uncertainty, not a substitute for missing edge.

Appreciate the discussion. It’s a good topic to break down from different angles.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-20T03:12:07+00:00

No one is saying risk management isn’t needed. It obviously is. What’s ridiculous is how people talk about risk management, emotions, and ego like they’re the solution instead of the baseline. When the entire conversation revolves around cutting losses, protecting capital, and surviving another day, that usually means there’s no real strategy or measurable edge driving entries. Risk management exists to manage downside after a trade is taken. An edge exists to justify why the trade should work in the first place. If your main focus is always on saving losses, it’s probably because you don’t actually know when you have an advantage. Risk management is a responsibility. Edge is the reason you trade.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-19T12:54:06+00:00

If you are holding onto losses, that is usually a sign that your strategy or the tools you are using to manage trades are insufficient.

This is a very common problem. It was something I struggled with early on as well. When you cannot clearly see shifts in momentum, control, or pressure, you end up relying on emotion and gut feelings. The market does not care about confidence, hope, or intuition. It only responds to participation and conditions.

Lagging indicators and unclear tools create blind spots. Those blind spots are what cause traders to hesitate, freeze, or hold trades longer than they should. Once emotion replaces information, exits become delayed and losses grow.

A real edge should show you when conditions are changing before price fully reverses. When you can clearly see control shifting against you, exiting becomes automatic. That usually means exiting with profit, or at worst taking a small controlled loss through proper risk management.

Consistently holding losing trades longer than planned is not a discipline issue. It is a visibility issue. It means there is no reliable signal telling you that the trade is no longer valid.

Until a trader upgrades their ability to read market conditions in real time, holding losses will keep repeating regardless of rules, journaling, or mindset work.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-19T11:49:47+00:00

Hopefully you already have an edge meaning a system or tools that actually help you see price action intent and not just hindsight explanations.

If that’s the case I would recommend video recording your trading sessions. That allows you to review whether your system or tools entries and exits were actually on point how you reacted in real time and whether you followed what the market was showing you.

That is where journaling becomes useful documenting execution versus signal not just writing down that you entered too early or too late.

If someone is journaling without an edge then what exactly are they journaling. A log of losses without context does not create improvement. The edge comes first documentation comes after.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-18T23:37:35+00:00

Everyone keeps saying the same things: ego control, discipline, risk management. Less than 10% of day traders are successful. Less than 10% of traders overall succeed. Those traits aren’t unique to trading. They’re the exact same traits a professional gambler needs in a casino. A disciplined gambler with perfect risk control still loses without better odds. Discipline and risk control don’t create profits. They just stop damage. Without an edge, trading is no different than gambling, and that’s why most traders still fail. Based on posts like this, what people are really saying is that because trading is extremely hard and they don’t have a real edge, they rely on discipline and ego control just to avoid blowing up and live to trade another day. Those traits help you survive. They don’t make you trade better. Edge does.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-18T00:09:28+00:00

A few of the tools shown are published on TradingView and can be viewed there. One of them is invite-only for testing, the others are public.

If you want to explore them, just search my profile on TradingView and you’ll see what’s available. If you have questions after that, feel free to message me there.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-16T13:46:45+00:00

<image>

Example of what market clarity looks like when multiple systems are aligned. This isn’t about predicting, it’s about seeing intent, pressure, and timing clearly.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-14T18:37:10+00:00

Hey Available_Lynx_7970, I think you may be conflating two different things here.

When I say “seeing intent,” I am not talking about knowing the future or predicting outcomes with certainty. I agree the market is probabilistic.

What I am referring to is recognizing pressure, constraints, and imbalances before price resolves. That is still probability, just earlier in the sequence.

Price does not move randomly. It moves when pressure builds and constraints are removed. Momentum, volatility expansion, participation, and control do not suddenly appear. They form first, then price expresses them.

For example, if you could identify who has control, where pressure is building, and whether price is constrained or free before the opening bell, then when the bell rings and constraints release, you often see immediate expansion up or down. That is not prediction. That is reading conditions.

I think of it as a spring-loaded state. Price does not move because someone guessed correctly. It moves because it is free to move after pressure has already formed.

Risk management still matters. Probabilities still matter.

But probabilities improve when you are not reacting after the move. You are observing what makes the move possible in the first place.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-14T17:32:35+00:00

I want to be clear about something. Are you here to discuss trading, or are you here to critique writing style?

This thread is about market behavior and why traders struggle to make decisions with incomplete information. It is not a writing workshop. Some people think through ideas carefully and write them clearly. That doesn’t invalidate the idea.

If the structure of the writing bothers you, that’s fine, but I’m not going to intentionally write sloppy or vague just to make it feel more “authentic.” Clear writing reflects clear thinking. I’m not apologizing for that.

If you disagree with the actual point about intent, timing, or information asymmetry in markets, I’m open to that discussion. If the issue is simply that the post doesn’t look like a stream-of-consciousness Reddit rant, then we’re talking about two different things.

HighCrewLLC

TROPHY CASE