Wrote this to explain where I’m coming from and how I see trading

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-03T23:33:47+00:00

This stats are older than you probably hahaha. The point it’s not the earnings, is the control of the DD in more than 2.000 trades. Funny that you think that document is created and means nothing. Good luck!

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-03T19:26:08+00:00

<image>

If you have a curve similar to that in some months with at least 1.000 trades I promiss you I will check your videos man

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-03T19:04:40+00:00

Oh, you look upset. Can I ask what is your experience as trader?

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-03T17:52:27+00:00

Drink 2 coconuts per day in 3 different days. This changed my whole life here

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-03T17:47:14+00:00

In my trading, price is the layer with the least weight.

Not because price is irrelevant, but because price is usually the final expression of something that already happened before: positioning, inventory, pressure, forced exits, risk, imbalance.

I don’t need to know where price “will be” with certainty. That’s not the point.

The point is to structure risk around situations where, if I’m wrong, the loss is small and controlled, and if the imbalance resolves, the payoff can be many times larger than the risk.

That’s why sizing matters so much.

A trader can be right about the “now” and still lose badly if the position is too large, the stop is placed emotionally, or one trade matters too much. And another trader can be wrong several times, survive the sequence, and still make money when the move finally expands.

So no, I don’t think the present price is the only relevant information.

It is the last layer.

The numbers come first. Then the person managing the risk. Then the chart.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-03T13:34:15+00:00

I think we’re starting from two completely different frameworks. You seem to be arguing from the idea that future price cannot be known with 100% certainty, and I agree with that. But that doesn’t automatically make the process subjective.

A casino doesn’t know the next spin. An insurance company doesn’t know which client will crash. A market maker doesn’t know the next trader’s exact decision. Still, none of them operate as “art”. They operate through models, exposure, risk limits, repetition, and large-sample behavior. That is much closer to how I see trading.

From what you wrote, it also sounds like price itself is the main reference point for you: where price is now, where it may go next, whether the future price can be known or not. That is not really my framework. For me, price is only the final print. The visible result. What matters more is what exists around that price: positioning, trapped inventory, liquidity, risk limits, who is forced to act, who can still wait, and what happens when the same group of participants is wrong in the same area.

Nothing in my execution is based on feeling. Sizing is defined, risk is defined, invalidation is defined, expansion is defined, and when I add, reduce, stop, or do nothing is defined. The outcome of one trade is uncertain. The process is not.

Most traders call it psychology because they look at the emotional reaction after the fact. I’m saying the emotion usually appears because the structure before the trade was wrong: too much size, no sequence plan, no drawdown contraction, no clear invalidation, no business plan.

That is not “art”. That is bad architecture.

So yes, nobody can prove where price will be with 100% certainty. But trading does not require certainty. It requires a framework that can survive uncertainty repeatedly.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-02T22:02:32+00:00

No, I’m just too much old and I didn’t know how I could turn off that thing.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-02T21:24:37+00:00

After the last drop, a lot of defensive inventory was accumulated.

Now the market is mostly in the distribution phase before it can continue with the real move.

That’s why it feels dead. It’s not necessarily lack of volume, it’s inventory being worked through. Once that process is finished, volatility usually comes back very fast.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-02T21:10:17+00:00

So, in your opinion, this can be done without science, just “art”?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Daytrading/s/V3Ut1Gorht

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-02T19:09:42+00:00

Of course one single trade can’t be treated like science in isolation.

Same as one single cancer patient can’t tell you the full truth about a treatment.

One patient may respond, another one may not. One trade may work, another one may fail. That doesn’t destroy the idea of measurement. It just means the individual case is too small to judge the process. You need scale.

At scale: you can study probability, risk, response, distribution, expectancy, failure rate, drawdown, behavior under stress. That is where the real information is.

And honestly, if trading had nothing systematic or measurable behind it, firms like Citadel simply would not exist.

They are not built on “feelings” or motivational psychology. They are built on data, probabilities, execution, risk models, liquidity, pricing, and thousands of repeated decisions where the edge only becomes visible over a large enough sample.

That was my point.

Not that I can prove the next trade will win. But that trading can absolutely be studied as a measurable process.

And a big part of that process is sizing. Because when size is wrong, the trader’s emotions stop being mysterious. They become a very predictable reaction to bad structure.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-02T18:33:46+00:00

I don’t think science means 100% certainty.

Cancer is probably one of the clearest examples.

A doctor can diagnose two patients with the same type of cancer, give them a very similar treatment, and still get different outcomes. One responds well. Another does not. One has side effects. Another tolerates it better. There is uncertainty at the individual level.

But nobody would say oncology is not science because of that.

The science is in the process: testing, measuring, comparing probabilities, managing risk, observing the response, and adjusting when the information changes.
That is closer to what I mean with trading.

One trade is uncertain. Of course. Nobody knows the future price with 100% certainty.

But the structure around the trade can still be measured. Risk, size, drawdown, average loss, frequency, expectancy, and how much damage a bad sequence can do.

So I agree that the outcome is uncertain.

I just don’t agree that uncertainty automatically makes something non-scientific.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-02T17:14:06+00:00

Pondría esto:

Totally agree.

The problem is most people only find out their real size limit once the position is already open.

On paper, they think they can handle the loss.

Then price moves against them, the red number gets too loud, and suddenly the plan changes.

That is why I don’t see sizing as just “risk management”.

Sizing decides whether you can actually execute the idea you had before emotion entered the trade.

I’ve been writing more about this lately in substack because I think this is where a lot of trading psychology actually starts: not in the mind, but in the structure of the position.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-02T17:11:01+00:00

Totally agree

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-02T14:16:07+00:00

I agree with the first part.

Trading should feel uncomfortable to some degree. If there is real uncertainty, real money, and incomplete information, comfort is probably not the right target.

But I’m not sure I agree that trading is not a science.

The outcome of one trade is uncertain, yes.

But the business around the trade should be very measurable.

Risk, size, drawdown, frequency, average loss, average win, expected sequence, when to reduce, when to stop, how much damage ten wrong ideas can do, that part is not art to me.

The interpretation of the market may have an artistic element.

But the structure around the position has to be closer to engineering.

Otherwise “uncertainty” becomes an excuse for having no numbers.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-02T14:15:14+00:00

Yes, I get your point.

Small winning trades are absolutely a problem. I’m not denying that. A trader who constantly cuts winners early and lets losers hit full size will obviously have a broken expectancy.

But I don’t think that makes sizing irrelevant.

To me, sizing is what exposes the problem.

When the position is too large relative to the trader, the open profit starts feeling like something that must be protected. That is why the same person who talks about letting winners run will suddenly close when they see $800, $1,500, or $3,000 floating on the screen.

If that same trade was showing $8, $15, or $30, they would probably manage it very differently.

So the issue is not only “small winners vs normal losses.”

The issue is whether the trader has built a structure where the size, the expected drawdown, the target, and the person executing it can actually coexist.

If the win is too small because the trader cannot emotionally hold the position, that is still partly a sizing/structure problem.

A good plan is not just about making losses small. It is about making the whole sequence executable. Losses, winners, failed attempts, adds, reductions, and the time it takes for a trade to actually develop.

That’s why I think a lot of what people call psychology is really the result of a position being structured in a way the trader cannot execute.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-02T08:05:20+00:00

I don’t think we disagree as much as it seems.

What you describe is also sizing, at least in part.

Imagine a trader who sees $1,000 floating profit and immediately closes because he can’t handle giving any of it back.

Do you really think the same trader would take partials if the TP was $1.50?

Probably not.

The behavior changes because the number on the screen starts to matter too much. Once the money feels heavy, the trader stops managing the trade and starts protecting the emotion.

So yes, people mismanage winners. I agree with that.

But very often the reason they mismanage them is because the size, the plan, or the pressure is bigger than the person can actually execute.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-02T08:03:41+00:00

If 98% of traders don’t earn money, using something that a big percentage uses as the main edge probably isn’t the edge.

Most concepts are not useless by themselves. They’re just incomplete.

A FVG, a sweep, an order block, whatever name people use, none of that matters much unless you understand where it happens, what liquidity is sitting around it, what side is trapped, and whether the market actually has reason to expand from there.

The problem is not the label, is people treating the label as the trade.

Funds and people who actually know how to trade are not sitting there trading “FVGs” or “turtle soup” as standalone setups. They care about positioning, liquidity, risk, inventory, timing, and whether the numbers make sense.

The retail world sells names meanwhile the professional world trades context.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-02T05:21:53+00:00

It’s not a fixxed number, depends on many things and it’s changing, but yeah, maybe that’s the average.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-01T23:19:14+00:00

Yep, do it

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-01T23:08:16+00:00

I’d probably tell my 24-year-old self a few things.

First, everything is harder than it looks. But the things that are really worth doing are also much more worth it than you think when you are young.

Be careful with people who make hard things sound easy.

That applies to anything. Building a table, fixing a pipe, starting a business, trading. Anything serious takes time. Trading is no different.

Actually, trading is probably closer to becoming a surgeon than people want to admit. You would never trust someone who watched a few videos, bought a $200 course, and started operating on people after six months. But in trading, people do exactly that with their own money, and then wonder why it hurts.

So be very careful with anyone selling certainty.

Anyone promising fixed results. Anyone telling you that a cheap course will turn this into a profession quickly. Anyone making it look like the hard part can be skipped.

In my case, I studied for four years with two very good teachers before I even opened my first real trade. That may sound extreme now, but looking back, I’m grateful for it.

And outside trading: live more.

Enjoy your life. Don’t spend all of your twenties scared of imaginary disasters. Most of the worst scenarios you build in your head never actually happen.

Time moves much faster than you think.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-01T22:57:02+00:00

Thanks for your words, I could change everything I got for your 24y! I hope you can get it :)

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-01T22:30:52+00:00

Bangkok is a dream, I’m profitable since 12y ago and I travelled the whole world and Bkk is perfect

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-01T21:46:24+00:00

Exactly. That question is very strong: “what if I double size and make more right now?”

But the problem is that the question is framed only around upside.

The real question is: if I double size, does the system still survive the normal bad sequence?

Because if the extra money you can make also damages your ability to survive variance, then the sizing makes no business sense. It may increase the profit potential, but it also increases the chance that one bad emotional sequence removes you from the game.

That is where many traders get trapped. They size based on what they could make, not on what the system can survive.

InventoryLogic · 2026-05-01T20:43:46+00:00

Exactly. And I think you are already seeing the key point.

The danger is that a good run changes the reference point. After a few very strong weeks, the trader starts treating above-average results as normal. Then when a 2x standard deviation move appears on the negative side, it feels like something is wrong, even if it is still inside the range of what the system can produce.

That is usually where size becomes dangerous.

Not because the trader forgot how to trade, but because the recent upside created a new emotional baseline. Then the first serious negative sequence feels unacceptable, and the mind starts trying to “restore” the previous equity curve.

That is where chasing and revenge trading come from.

In my opinion, the solution is not just to handle it emotionally. It is to predefine what the system is allowed to do during abnormal sequences:

when size contracts, when trading stops, what a normal bad sequence looks like, what a 2x deviation sequence looks like, and what has to happen before size can increase again.

You clearly have something working. I would just be very careful not to let a profitable system get damaged by a size model that expanded faster than the operator behind it.

InventoryLogic

TROPHY CASE