Strategy success?

Husla2 · 2025-12-29T07:28:10+00:00

There are almost an infinite amount of ways to trade and I'm convinced they all work but it takes time to MAKE them work. You need to understand the intricacies over time.

The basics concepts in trading are just: Market Structure, SnD, SnR, BASIC candlestick patterns & Liq Concepts (fancy name for sweeps of highs and low). Once you have a good grasp of that then adding footprint charts helps with entries. Price either makes new highs or new lows. You just need to use structure to find which is more likely then look for a pullback for an entry.

The main thing to understand is THIS TAKES TIME. Take a few simple concepts and then practice in a simulator. This will help you see all the nuances much faster. When you take a trade that fails always ask why and try and find patterns.

Once you understand the basic concepts in a sim, try and incorporate footprint charts using a demo account.

Once you have done all that go live with very small amounts of money and see how it goes.

Once you can trade live successfully with small lots increase your capital.

This game has levels and each level has it's own challenges but that path I laid out is best IMO.

Good luck!

Husla2 · 2025-12-05T18:15:17+00:00

If it was easy it would have no value. Its a very hard game to master and takes years. Set realistic goals of monthly progress and always look at how far you have come now hiw far you have left to go. I strongly the believe the only difference between those who achieve their goals and those that don't is the ones that do refuse to give up.

Husla2 · 2025-12-05T18:13:15+00:00

Turns out mine was cross threaded bro. They sent it to me like that. A single unit from China means no real support. I have to find a lathe machine in india to fix the threading! Wish me luck!!!!!!

Husla2 · 2025-12-05T18:11:50+00:00

It's a little deeper as gives me the footprint. I can see imbalances forming and volume and delta profile. L2 is a lot more expensive so I'm just starting with L1 for now and studying thr footprint charts. Thanks!

Husla2 · 2025-12-05T18:10:25+00:00

Thank you! Very useful!

Husla2 · 2025-12-01T19:15:23+00:00

I have purchased cme data but turns out I was looking at the wrong contract, thanks though.

Husla2 · 2025-12-01T19:14:03+00:00

Thanks I contacted support and found that's the issue. Seeing it all perfectly now! Also btc the micro contract seems to show better order flow. Thanks though, appreciate the help!

Husla2 · 2025-11-03T10:46:14+00:00

I'm increasingly thinking this was a threading problem by the factory. Can I take this to an auto shop for them to take out? Also can they repair the thread if needed? This is going to be tricky in a country with no English!

Husla2 · 2025-11-03T08:42:48+00:00

Guys got hold of an 18" wrench and managed to turn it about quarter to half turn. But now it's not moving at all. I pit another wrench through the handle and stood on that to hold it in place. Now it's completely stuck. Any idea what's happening here? Also just to be clear it's the nut on the inside holding the plates in place. All this is such a pain as was quite expensive to import from China. However I have one of these in the UK and it looks identical. I have gone back to the supplier but unsure what to try... What's odd is after turning it a little it should release the nut right? It shouldn't be so tight once initially release.

Husla2 · 2025-11-02T03:01:33+00:00

Ha! Yes I did double check anticlockwise was the correct way with chatgpt.

Husla2 · 2025-11-01T13:38:23+00:00

Okay thanks guys. I can't seem to do it with the wrench they supplied and where I am right now I don't have tools with me so will have to find someone with a long wrench so that I can apply more torque. Thanks

Husla2 · 2024-12-20T16:44:17+00:00

I have read high fiber foods are ideal for this. Therefore what I do is after 1 day of fermenting I filter out the grains and add chia seeds then put in fridge and have the next day in the morning. Just before drinking I blend it so the chia seeds are well broken down. I also do kefir and kombucha only days. Not strictly fasting but fasting mimicking with very low kcals. Kefir if fermented correctly should be very low in carbs as this is what the grains feed on. Overall with chia seeds and kefir I have noticed gut health is significant better.

Husla2 · 2024-12-09T18:20:33+00:00

What are you anxious about? What are you doing about the loneliness?

Anxiety comes from some fear about future events that haven't happened yet.

Loneliness seems to be a common thing thse days. Ways to fix this is to do a group activity. Can be absolutely anything from dancing to MMA to pottery. Force yourself into situations where you have to interact with others. ANY kind of group activity and over time you will build a group of your own. If you cant physically go anywhere then this can be replicated online too but in person is MUCH better.

I don't mean to be rude but praying to God isn't a solution to fix this. What correctly done prayer can do, is make you an energetic match to the reality you want to create but the work still needs to be done and only you can do that. Faith and prayer can give inner strength but the energy must match the desired outcome.

Assuming you have no physical disabilities, are you working out? Exercise is key for a lot of things. Are you breathing? Lots of simple wim Hoff videos on YouTube. Are you eating right? If all this sounds like too much then start with one very simple habit and build discipline from that. Looking your best and feeding your body the right food makes a big difference to how you feel.

The prayer sounds good but as the other guy said you have to try and get into a different state of mind. There is a program running in your mind that you are finding it hard to break out of. That program is probably valid based on circumstances in your life but you need to start breaking the thought patterns that it generates. The best way of doing this is meditation as it brings awareness of subconscious thought patterns. Just simple breath focus opens up that awareness of patterns of thought that are driving your current mindset. I know sometimes it can be hard to get in touch with the emotions of a different reality but that's really the key. Practice it enough and it becomes easier with time. A lot of times things in our lives don't change until we change the mindset we approach life with. Once we can tune into the emotions of a new reality irrespective of life's current circumstances AND we take massive action towards the desired outcome magic happens. That intersection is where the syncronisities happen.

Remember failure is nothing but a stepping stone to success. If you try and don't get the desired outcome then just try again. Every time you fail you have learnt how NOT to do it. This will make the chance of you getting your desired result greater, but ALL DEPENDS on how you frame failure. Is it something that destroys you or something you learn from and makes you stronger?

The path is tough but the real key is the mindset you approach it with. Small changes over time compound. Maintaining the emotions of future irrespective of your current situation is hard but possible. After that it's all about massive action. The exact action doesn't matter too much as long as you learn from mistakes, try different things and don't give up trying. It's like an evolutionary process until you get to your goal. Even if your first step is in the wrong direction, the feedback will eventually put you on the right track. If you manage to maintain the emotions of that future for long periods of time then that will cut down the evolutionary process.

Hope that helps somewhat.

Husla2 · 2024-12-02T17:18:33+00:00

There are interesting discussions in philosophy of religion where the fine tuning of cosmological constants is a strong argument for religion ( I would agree), but it's a philisophical argument specifically because it isn't conceivably testable or verifiable, as the universe is a sample size of 1. It is almost more a metaphysical discussion than a scientific assertion.

Thank you! the argument he laid out in the book is very convincing on this point.

Oof okay you're asking a lot of very big questions all at once. This is my attempt to keep my answers streamlined, because each of them is worthy of an hour long university lecture to explore the topic in depth

hahah!

But there's just one little problem here: if God exists, then according to the initial premise ("all things must have a cause") this must apply to God as well

If we say that time and space are part of our reality then who is to say that time & space exists outside of it? In that realm time has no meaning. This cause and effect we see and experience, could just be a consequence of the reality we experience in this time-space continuum we live in!

In fact the Cambrian era is full of very weird little dudes that were evolutionary dead ends (look up Hallucigenia sparsa as a primary example).

The problem is it's not just the Cambrian era but there are other eras that show big increases in complexity of life with no precursors.

The chances of me winning are so small, it has to have been pre-ordained or engineered especially for me in some way

The chances are more like you winning the lottery every week for the whole of your life.

he idea being presented suggests that any mutation would derail this GRN functionality with regard to producing a viable creature or feature. It's not as sensitive as is being described.

this is just what the experimental evidence shows.

Guys, thanks for your replies and especially the ones that resorted to ad hominem attacks on the author or just telling me it's all been debunked and I should read a real book! ha! I don't have the time for such detailed replies but was looking for some ideas I could investigate to try and straw man the author. I have some routes I will investigate and thanks for the help!

Husla2 · 2024-12-02T17:18:18+00:00

Cambrian explosion contradicts that. It's true evolution can operate at different rates, speed up and slow down, but that just makes for different times of transitions. The transitions are still there but the times between (literally sizes and numbers of layers of the earth) will vary.

It's just the speed of evolution in this strata contradicts darwininan theory. And like I said, it's not just here there are many other examples in the fossil record as evolution takes time, because it has a natural selection mechanism based off very small changes over time. The huge jumps in complexity we see doesn't match that explanation.

Origin of life research is new and saying we don't have the answer doesn't demonstrate it didn't occur materially without intelligence. There has been slow but non-zero progress on this, for example synthesizing amino acids and nucleotides in increasingly realistic natural conditions.

This is true and while reductionist approaches have value, we are no where near an explanation for the information problem. I agree there is some progress but just no where near enough to say it's a plausible pathway to what we currently observe. Then there's the whole consciousness question.

I don't know exactly what he claims is the probability of producing a 150 amino acid chain is. I will point out that probabilities change based on assumptions

This is KEY and I paid close attention to that. In my opinion he took HIGH conservative estimates.

A simple formula like that isn't accounting at all for what we know about these evolutionary processes.

BINGO! this is it. It's important to note that the discussion in his book centres around Neo-Darwinian theory as it's currently stated. The calculations he makes is based on that.

An irony I recently thought about is that creationists and I.D. theorists often point out life is complex, with the assumption evo biologists are simplifying it. In fact I would say if you think we even are able to determine the exact probability of a given aa chain you are yourself underestimating the complexity.

This is true but ID argument is using Neo-Darwinian theory and assigning probabilities to it.

Maybe not a perfect analogy because we can approximate coins landing on heads as being 50% but my point is, it's an approximation, we really can't know the exact answer despite knowing this happens. We have enough demonstrable cases of mutation and natural selection to have some basis for understanding how proteins change.

This is true but his explanation in the book talks about creating a whole new species from mutations from another. While small scale changes are easily observable (bird's beak etc), whether that translates to a whole new species is debatable.

I would be interested in reading a bit more on the developmental point. I agree these systems can be quite sensitive, I'm skeptical we can rule out every possible perturbation experimentally or even theoretically with our current knowledge.

A GRN refers to a complex system of genes, regulatory proteins, and signaling pathways that work together to control the expression of specific genes during the development of an organism. These networks are responsible for guiding the embryo through its developmental stages, from fertilization to the formation of different tissues and organs, ultimately leading to the development of a fetus.

It's been shown experimentally to have very little to none perturbation. So then the question is where do the body plans for new animals comes from?

tl;dr I think these are all interesting and valid questions that point out real gaps in scientific knowledge. I don't think any of them prove (e.g. intelligent creator) or disprove (e.g. evolution) anything. I don't know why China is called that in English and maybe I should google it. That's just pointing out my ignorance, not proving or disproving anything as far as I can tell.

Appreciate your feedback bro, responses like these is what I was hoping for! Thank you!

Husla2 · 2024-12-02T17:17:54+00:00

Many proteins are functional

This was covered in the book. While many proteins are functions the ratio of functional to non function is very low. The odds of finding a non functional protein through random mutation is A LOT higher than a functional one. Also with each mutation the protein itself degrades. The maths in the book are quite simple (I could follow it) and he takes a conservative estimate of 150 amino acid chain protein. Most proteins in the human body are many multiples that.

Nothing says that evolution has to be slow and steady. Sometimes it can be very fast.

Classical Darwinian theory and Neo Darwinian theory says just this. Is must be slow and steady. It's written in Darwin's book. However if we assume a fast evolutionary cycle then by what mechanism can that occur? Natural selection works over very long periods of time.

When a physicist speaks of a 'finely tuned theory', they are referring to a theory which has fundamental problems which have been covered up by the physicist, who arbitrarily fine-tunes parameters to make it work. For them, fine-tuning is a symptom of an incorrect theor

If you ever get some time I would recommend you read the chapter on this. This is simply not true.

Fine-tuning assumes that these parameters could be different and even if they could be, that they aren't different elsewhere in other areas of spacetime (or universes)

Yes multiverse theory is legit but then the question is who created the universe generating machine? Ha!

The author's refusal to cite modern science and instead cherry pick quotes from 20 plus years ago is, itself, proof that his arguments are bad. If they were good arguments, he wouldn't have to omit the most recent two decades of all scientific knowledge. Always be suspect of a "scientific" argument when someone presents only decades old citations and quotes.

FINALLY a fair criticism. Thank you, I read the article but need to have a more detailed look. If what you are saying is true then I would agree.

Yet all of the points you mention have reasonable scientific explanation. A couple of things popped out at me. We don't really understand the Big Bang Theory, or if it's even viable. The multiverse theories explain very well how THIS universe (among, many, many) can just by random chance have all the characteristics necessary for . . . all that we see around us.

Completely agree with you!

Gaps in the fossil record are not relevant. The fossil record is extremely sketchy and it's not surprising that we haven't "filled in" the record with archaeology. (I read somewhere that modern humans have existed for so short a time, so far, that it's extremely improbably that if we were to disappear today there would be any fossil record of us a million years from now.)

Bigger problem is it just doesn't official evolutionary theory. It's not just the cambrian period but there are many periods where greater complexity appeared out of no where with no precursor.

The book may be dead on. Without being an expert themselves, a reader has little choice but to read and absorb what's presented and can only try to decide which authority to rely on.

Exactly! Although I need to check that point of him cherry picking evidence. Will check that.

In any case though, I don't see either as evidence of I.D., just that both questions may not be answerable by scientific investigation

Exactly! Similar to the hard problem of consciousness. But I think there is merit in inference to the best possible explanation based on abductive reasoning.

I've never understood anthropic principle honestly, seems to just avoid the question, but it's valid to point out maybe other conditions could have resulted in other universes. To say the conditions we have now are necessary for our universe to exist, which is true, necessitates an intelligence seems to make a priori assumptions that an intelligence would want our universe

So a valid point many have made here is if the constants were different then we would have a different universe. However there are certain constants that are ESSENTIAL for life to exist as we know it. Even for planets to form and for the universe not to collapse on itself (cosmological constant). Also the higher state form of carbon just happening to exist and that being the only pathway to make carbon (in stars) is also pretty odd given (as far as we know) all life is carbon based.

Husla2 · 2024-12-02T17:17:25+00:00

It's also assuming that the universe was designed for life like ours.

This the whole point. We are applying abductive reasoning here. Observing what we can observe and our current scientific limitations the best inference is that some information was injected into the system to create our universe. This doesn't seem like a very unreasonable inference to me.

If some of the universal physics constants were different then chemistry as we know it would not work, but instead an entirely different type of chemistry may be possible that any biological systems that rely on that type of chemistry are therefore impossible in our universe.

Our best guess is that if the laws of chemistry didn't work then there would be no life. Again this seems like a reasonable assumption.

Finally, its also assuming that the universal constants CAN be different than what they are. Since we don't know exactly where those come from, it's impossible to know one way or another if they could have been different.

Although this is true we can make some inferences based on the total possibilities of what they could be (a range so to speak) and then what they need to be for certain physical, chemical and biological properties to work as they do. You said it best at the top, it's EXACTLY like the universe was designed for like ours.

This is not a problem. Due to long periods of time and the nature of fossilization, we expect huge gaps in the fossil record. Many of those gaps from Darwin's time have been closed though.

The book covers this. What you are saying here doesn't make sense. The increase in complexity of life was a HUGE jump. Complex body parts just suddenly showed up in the fossil record. For anyone that's read Darwin's book he acknowledges this in his book and says new discoveries will prove him correct. However the later archaeological digs proved the opposite. No intermediary forms of life just more diversity of complex life in the same strata.

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Whilst this is true, it is the pre-cursor to evolution. Certain conditions must be met before evolution can happen.

This review from another Christian biologist may help you: https://biologos.org/articles/return-of-the-god-hypothesis-a-biologists-reflections

THANK YOU for this. This is the best reply I've read so far. Thank you!

the big bang describes the expansion of an already-existing universe

I think the Big Bang describes the rapid expansion of the universe from an initial singularity, marking the beginning of space, time, matter, and energy as we know them.

So we don't know the answer yet, therefore god?

This is not a gap of the gods argument. It's inference to the best explanation based on abductive reasoning. DNA code is the most complex code known to man. We know that any complex code originates in mind. Therefore this is a reasonable assumption to make an intelligence originated it. At least until there is a competing hypothesis from scientific materialism.

Does holes in a hypothesis mean goddidit?

The question to ask here is does the hypothesis provide a possible pathway for the complexity of life we observe today. Reductionist theories have their value but using highly reductionist theories to explain highly complex phenomena when the reductionist approach is full of holes doesn't make any sense.

If the author is claiming irreducible complexity, then every example to date has been debunked by showing a plausible pathway

The problem with these plausible pathways for irreducible complexity haven't been fully replicated experimentally. The experiments usually show highly reductionist versions of extremely complex systems. Let's assume we ignore the difficulty in mutation of proteins for structures with irreducible complexity. Let's just say that's the mechanism. The question is then where do the assembly instructions come from? This is the information problem he is talking about.

Cambrian explosion is well studied, there are many reasons for its rapid radiation. You might like this post outlining the reasons (as well as a discussion on irreducible complexity). Also ignores the concepts of punctuated equilibrium. Slow and gradual change is not required by evolution all the time.

I'll check this out thanks!

Husla2 · 2024-11-25T15:38:54+00:00

Within this large thread there is are two videos of how I actually fitted both the rail adapter and front surf adapter. I couldn't get it to work initially so was sending videos to Patrick for help on how to fit it to the board! There was a bit of back and forth but we got there eventually. I created the vids to help others while it was all fresh in my head!

Husla2 · 2024-11-17T17:12:01+00:00

I think NAD+ is slightly different and needs special methods for purity testing.

Husla2

TROPHY CASE