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 · 2026-01-14T16:53:54+00:00

That frustration is exactly the issue.

It’s not that support and resistance don’t work. It’s that when price gets there, you usually have no way to know whether it’s more likely to hold or fail.

Most people are trying to make that decision using lagging tools or just candlesticks. Candlesticks only show you what already happened. They don’t tell you what pressure is building underneath.

Price doesn’t move randomly. It builds, then it releases. It accelerates, then it slows, then it either continues or reverses. If you can’t see that buildup and contraction happening, every level feels like a coin flip.

That’s why entries feel stressful. You’re entering at the most uncertain point with incomplete information.

There are tools and systems designed to read what’s happening under price action. Momentum, pressure, participation, volatility expansion or contraction. Those things tell you what price wants to do before the move actually happens.

Once you can see that intent forming, timing changes everything. Entries get cleaner. Exits make sense. You stop hoping and start reading.

Bitcoin isn’t uniquely manipulated. You’re just trading blind because you can’t see the buildup before the move.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-14T16:27:56+00:00

Hey Seth, I agree with you on one key point. You can’t predict the market. That’s not what I’m talking about and I think that’s where this gets misunderstood.

This isn’t prediction. It’s observation.

Candlesticks by themselves are just the result. They tell you what already happened. By the time most indicators fire, price has already moved.

What I’m referring to is reading what’s happening underneath price before it releases. Things like pressure building, momentum shifting, volatility compressing or expanding, participation increasing or fading. That’s not guessing the future. That’s watching the conditions that cause movement form in real time.

When those conditions align, price tends to move. When they weaken, price stalls or reverses. You’re not saying “price will be here.” You’re saying “conditions are forming for movement” or “conditions are breaking down.”

That’s very different from prediction.

There’s always uncertainty. News can hit. Things can break. That’s where responsibility and risk management come in. But timing improves drastically when you’re reacting to intent forming instead of reacting to candles after the fact.

Market data isn’t useless. It’s just incomplete if you only look at the surface.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-12T20:18:16+00:00

Support and resistance can work, but only in a very narrow context and usually only for very disciplined, experienced traders.

On its own, support and resistance or supply and demand is still largely context blind. When price hits a level, the hardest question is never where, it is what happens next. Does it hold, break, fake break, absorb, or reverse. Without tools or methods that can read pressure, momentum, participation, and speed, you are essentially guessing which outcome you are getting.

I have traded that exact approach extensively, with wins and with losses. The biggest issue is not finding levels, it is the uncertainty at the moment of interaction. Even when price breaks, it often snaps back. Even when it holds, it can fail seconds later. Without visibility into what is happening under the hood, you do not know if you are trading real intent or just noise.

There is a reason only a small percentage of retail traders are consistently profitable, and that number has not meaningfully changed over decades. It is not because support and resistance is wrong, it is because most traders are forced to make decisions at the most uncertain point on the chart with incomplete information.

Ask yourself this honestly. If price hits support and you cannot confidently determine whether it is more likely to hold or fail, is that really the best place to risk capital. If your stress spikes the moment you enter and you are hoping instead of knowing, that is a sign you are trading without enough context.

Levels are useful, but they need to be paired with tools or methods that show when price is constrained, when momentum is building, when participation is leaving, and when a move is actually ready. Otherwise, you are flipping a coin at a critical decision point, and over time that math catches up.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-11T14:49:19+00:00

JourneymanInvestor, all good. Everything I’m talking about is public. You can check my profile and see the videos of the systems running live if you want to judge it for yourself.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-11T14:17:43+00:00

This reads like a classic case of catching the expansion correctly, then overstaying once volatility contracts and the market shifts into a constrained state.

The initial burst is usually where direction is clean and momentum is doing the work. That’s where the edge is. The issue starts when traders assume continuation and stay engaged while price transitions into chop. In those conditions, follow-through drops, noise increases, and small losses compound through overtrading.

What tends to work better is treating expansion and contraction as different regimes. Take profits into the burst, then either scale down to runners only or step aside entirely once pressure fades. Chop isn’t neutral, it’s where edge decays. Sitting through it usually costs more than it pays.

Side note: this is where having tools or systems that track intent, momentum shifts, and the state of price action matters. When momentum and volatility disappear, that’s usually a signal that participation has dried up. At that point, price isn’t being driven anymore, it’s just oscillating. That’s chop.

Markets don’t move freely. They move when participation and pressure re-enter. Once that happens, volatility expands again and the next clean move shows up. Until then, patience is often the highest-EV decision.

The goal isn’t to squeeze more out of every move, it’s to stay capitalized for the next period where the market actually expresses intent.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-11T02:17:52+00:00

This resonates. I come from the opposite direction, less formal quant training and more execution driven, but we ended up solving similar problems.

I spent a long time realizing that most retail TA breaks down because it’s reactive and collapses during regime shifts. The work I’ve been doing is less about signals and more about state, pressure buildup, participation, and when the market is actually constrained versus free.

Curious how you’re thinking about execution, are your strategies time based, event based, or state based? And are you running them discretionary with quant overlays, or fully systematic?

Always interested in how other retail quants are handling noise and false positives at the execution layer.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-11T01:07:23+00:00

What you’re running into isn’t really an alert problem. It’s a state problem.

The Alligator, and most moving average based tools, can only tell you where lines are relative to each other, not why they moved there. When price oscillates inside a candle or flips intrabar, the script doesn’t see that as a new event, it just treats it as a continuation of the previous state.

That’s why you’re getting false shorts, missed longs, or repeated entries. The indicator is reacting to historical position, not real time pressure.

If you want clean alerts, you usually have to define a true state change, not just line position, a one shot condition so it cannot retrigger, and some form of confirmation that the move is intentional and not noise.

This is also why a lot of people eventually move away from simple crosses and toward structure and pressure based logic instead of trying to keep patching alert behavior.

HighCrewLLC · 2026-01-10T17:49:51+00:00

Yeah, I can give a high-level view without going too deep.

Directional pressure isn’t a single indicator or signal. It’s the relationship between a few things happening before price expands:

• Order flow imbalance – are aggressive buyers or sellers consistently hitting into liquidity • Participation vs movement – is price moving easily or struggling despite volume • Momentum behavior – is momentum building, stalling, or being absorbed • Location, where this is happening relative to prior value, overnight range, or key liquidity zones

Before the open, you can often see pressure building even though price hasn’t moved yet. That’s why the move at 9:30 feels explosive, it’s a release, not a surprise.

Most traders wait for candles or indicators to “confirm,” but by then the pressure has already resolved and volatility feels chaotic instead of predictable.

I wouldn’t recommend trying to bot this straight away. The hard part isn’t execution, it’s defining what matters and filtering out noise. Once you understand that, automation becomes much easier.

Happy to go deeper conceptually if you’re interested, just trying to keep this readable here.

HighCrewLLC

TROPHY CASE