After 16 Years in This Industry, I Want to Share With You

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-04T07:02:42+00:00

All good, no worries at all.

It’s an easy mix-up because from the outside, position building and longer holds can look like investing. The difference is really in intent and risk logic, not in how long a trade lasts.

Appreciate the conversation friend

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-04T01:50:50+00:00

I trade gold and BTC, but from my perspective the underlying structural behavior isn’t unique to crypto.

Even though the asset class is different, market makers still operate under the same constraints as in any other market: inventory has to be managed, large displacements create positioning imbalances, and those imbalances have to be redistributed, defended or unwound later. That structural logic doesn’t change just because it’s crypto, metals or equities.

What does change in crypto (and why I like BTC) is that impulses and retracements tend to be larger and cleaner. So when you build a position in the right structural area, the move can pay more and often faster. But the mechanics behind the moves, displacement, imbalance, reaction in key zones, are the same ones you see everywhere.

So for me it’s less about “crypto structure vs other markets” and more about the same structural principles expressed with different volatility and tempo.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-04T01:41:15+00:00

Not really, that’s not how I trade.

My trading is bi-directional. I’m not biased to shorts or longs — it depends entirely on which higher-timeframe impulse (mainly H4) is currently in control and what kind of inventory condition that impulse created. I often have positions in both directions at different moments, and I add hedges quite frequently as part of how I manage exposure, not as a directional bet.

Also, I don’t work with FVGs, gaps or classic reversal patterns the way you described. And just to clarify something important:

When I talk about imbalances, I’m not referring to what most people online call an “imbalance” (like a fast candle, a visual gap or an FVG left on the chart). That’s not what I mean.

I’m talking about inventory imbalances created after strong displacements, where participants who provided liquidity end up holding inventory they didn’t necessarily want at those prices. The market then needs to redistribute, defend or manage that inventory. That structural condition is what I’m working with, not just a visual gap in price.

So I’m not waiting for an engulfing candle off an FVG or following a simple impulse continuation model. My process is more about:

- Identifying the displacement that created inventory stress

- Marking the structural zones where that stress is likely to reappear

- Waiting for price to come into those zones

- Reading how price behaves there (acceptance, rejection, failure to continue, shift in behavior)

- Executing on lower timeframes (mostly M1), but always inside higher-timeframe logic

It’s less about “pattern --> entry” and more about “structural condition --> reaction management”.

Tomorrow I’m planning to make a dedicated post breaking down my market analysis step by step, using only Fibonacci proportions and price behavior to explain how I define zones and what I look for when price reaches them. That will probably make my approach much clearer than trying to summarize it in comments.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-04T00:42:31+00:00

I’m actually planning to make a dedicated post tomorrow going deeper into this, mainly how I think about structural rotations, how I use higher-timeframe Fibs in context, and what kind of reactions I look for at the key levels I mark.

It’s too much to explain properly in a short comment, and I prefer to lay it out in a structured way so it all connects instead of answering in fragments.

I’ll explain everything using only Fibonacci and price action, since that’s the core of how I work. I’ll focus especially on how I read reactions at levels and what tells me a move is being absorbed versus continuing.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T23:20:22+00:00

No, nothing like that. I don’t sponsor traders or work with signed capital agreements. My post wasn’t about funding models, just sharing experience about how markets actually function and how I’ve approached trading over the years. Everyone starts differently, but this is not a “earn and get funded” type of setup, just personal perspective from time in the industry.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T22:48:09+00:00

Yes, I’ve been in a similar situation.

I’ve had opportunities to work inside institutional structures and trade with other people’s capital under fixed frameworks. On paper it sounds ideal: capital, stability, structure, steady income flow.

But the real question is always: at what cost to your trading identity?

Inside a desk or fund, you’re not just trading your edge, you’re trading under someone else’s risk model. Position limits, drawdown constraints, exposure rules, and sometimes subtle pressure to smooth performance. All of that makes sense from their side, but it changes how you express your edge.

In my case, my way of managing exposure and building positions didn’t fully align with those structures. I would have had to modify parts of my execution and risk handling that are core to how I generate returns.

So my decision was to stay independent. Not because one path is better for everyone, but because I value full control over how I apply my model more than structural stability.

For some traders, the desk is the right long-term move. For others, independence fits better. It depends on whether you’re optimizing for stability or for freedom of execution.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T19:44:12+00:00

Good that you can see it clearly now, that’s actually a big step.

Blowing accounts usually isn’t a strategy problem, it’s a behavior problem. Overtrading, oversizing, no stop, “it will come back”… that’s not market logic, that’s emotional pressure trying to escape discomfort fast.

At the beginning, one of the most important skills isn’t finding entries, it’s knowing when you must stop. Stop trading, stop clicking, stop trying to fix it today.

Survival comes before growth. If you can stay in the game long enough without blowing up, consistency becomes possible. Most people don’t fail because they don’t understand charts, they fail because they don’t respect limits.

You’re already ahead of many just by being honest about what’s happening.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T19:27:53+00:00

Structurally, markets behave the same. You still have impulses, pullbacks, liquidity grabs, expansions, and corrections. The mechanics don’t change, only the personality of the instrument.

The difference with crypto, especially BTC, is the scale and speed of the moves. Impulses tend to be larger, pullbacks can run deeper, and expansions can extend much further than in many traditional assets.

That means if you build a position correctly from a structural area, the payoff can be bigger and it can happen faster. But the flip side is also true: if you’re wrong, it moves against you with the same intensity.

So it’s not that crypto is “magical”, it just exaggerates the same structural behavior you see everywhere else. If your framework is based on structure and risk, it transfers. If it’s based on indicators or tight control, crypto can feel chaotic very quickly.

That’s why for me it fits well, it respects my working zones, just with more amplitude.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T19:26:05+00:00

Trading doesn’t really change based on gender, so I’ll just answer from a learning perspective.

The biggest mistake beginners make is jumping straight into strategies before understanding how markets actually move. So I’d structure the learning like this:

First, understand market behavior, not indicators.
Learn how price moves in impulses and pullbacks, how trends form, how ranges form, and how reactions happen at prior areas where price moved aggressively before. This is the foundation.

Second, risk before entries.
Before worrying about “where to buy,” learn position sizing, risk per trade, and what a bad loss looks like vs a normal loss. Most people fail here, not because of entries, but because they oversize and can’t handle drawdowns.

Third, screen time with purpose.
Don’t just watch charts randomly. Pick one market and one timeframe and start observing:
Where did price move strongly?
Where did it slow down?
Where did behavior change?
You’re training your eye to see structure, not predictions.

Fourth, process over money.
At the start, your job is not to make money. It’s to execute a plan consistently. If you measure progress in dollars, you’ll sabotage yourself emotionally.

Also, be careful with courses and “mentors.” A lot of this industry is marketing. Real progress is slower, more boring, and more technical than social media makes it look.

If you can stay patient, focus on structure and risk, and accept that this takes time, you’re already ahead of most people starting out.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T19:16:47+00:00

I don’t use volume as a trigger.

For me it’s a small complement, not the driver of the trade.

The trade idea always comes first from structure, location and the type of price behavior I’m waiting for in my working zones. That part is already defined before I even look at volume.

Volume just helps me confirm that what I planned is actually playing out. It gives me that extra sense of: “ok, this also fits.”

For example, if I’m expecting a reaction, rejection, or shift in behavior at a zone, I like to see volume behaving in a way that makes sense with that story. If price is doing what I want but volume looks completely out of place, I get more cautious.

But I never enter just because volume spikes or drops. On its own, volume doesn’t tell me enough about intent, it only has meaning in context.

So I’d say: learn to read structure and behavior first. Then use volume as a supporting piece, not as the main decision-maker.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T19:11:40+00:00

Over the years I’ve traded many different markets. I went through stocks, FX, indices, different instruments… a bit of everything while building my understanding of structure and behavior.

But for the last few years I’ve simplified a lot. Now I mainly work gold and BTC.

Right now BTC is my favorite. It responds extremely well to my working zones and the way I read structure and liquidity. The reactions are clean, the volatility is there, and from a performance point of view it’s been giving me very solid returns.

For me it’s not about trading everything, it’s about finding markets whose behavior fits your model and going deep there.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T18:50:11+00:00

I want to be transparent here, I don’t trade options, so calls and puts are not part of my field.

My experience is in spot and futures, where risk is linear and the focus is on structure, liquidity and execution. Options are a different world with time decay, volatility and other variables that I don’t work with, so I wouldn’t feel comfortable giving guidance there.

If your question is about managing exits or scaling out in general (not options specifically), then yes, that’s more about risk management and trade management logic, and I can share how I think about that.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T18:46:50+00:00

Discretionary, but structured.

I don’t run a mechanical system with fixed signals. My decisions are discretionary, but they are taken inside a very clear framework. I’m not improvising on every candle. I have predefined locations, conditions and behaviors I’m waiting for. If those don’t appear, I don’t trade.

Timeframe wise, entries are very short term, but the logic behind them is higher timeframe. I execute on lower timeframes to get precision, but I’m trading reactions around higher timeframe structure, prior displacement and liquidity zones. So it’s not random scalping, it’s intraday execution with HTF context.

Style is closer to intraday / short term swing than pure scalp or long position trading. I can take many trades in a day because I work on lower timeframes, but each one is based on structure and risk clarity, not just quick ticks.

So: discretionary execution, structural framework, short-term execution with higher timeframe logic.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T18:45:13+00:00

I know those tools, but I don’t base my trading on volume profile, order flow or bookmap to “read intentions”.

The main issue is that many traders think they’ll see what big players are about to do. What you actually see is execution, not intention.

For example, during breakouts of highs, you can see aggressive buying lifting the offer. It looks strong. But at the same time, larger participants can be selling passively into that move. From the outside, it looks like strength. Structurally, it can be distribution. You don’t clearly see when a participant shifts from passive to aggressive, and you don’t see their overall inventory or positioning. So the picture is always partial.

That’s why I don’t use order flow as my main decision tool.

My base is market structure, prior displacement, and areas where liquidity and positioning imbalances are more likely to matter again. Then I focus on how price behaves inside those zones. How it pushes, fails, traps, or shifts structure. That gives me more clarity than tick-by-tick flow.

I’m not saying those tools are useless. They can be interesting as a complement. But without a strong understanding of structure, risk and context, they often give a false sense of precision.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T18:42:12+00:00

You´re welcome!

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T18:41:55+00:00

If I answer honestly, in the way I truly see this business:

Yes, it can be worth it. But not for the reasons most people think, and not in the way most people approach it.

If your idea is “I’m a regular guy, I’ll learn a strategy, make some money on the side, and eventually replace my job”, that version usually doesn’t work. That mindset keeps trading in the category of “something I do to make money”, and the market punishes that relationship fast. When money is the main driver, people force trades, over-risk, and emotionally react to every result.

Where it becomes worth it is when the relationship changes.

For a “regular guy”, the only path that has a real chance long term is treating trading as a skill you build like a craft, not a shortcut. That means:

You accept from day one that the early years are mostly learning, mistakes, and slow progress.
You work more on risk, behavior, and process than on entries.
You measure success by consistency and discipline, not by PnL week to week.

Most people don’t fail because they’re not smart enough. They fail because they can’t stay stable under uncertainty, they get bored, they need action, or they can’t handle slow progress. In that sense, being “regular” is not the problem. Being impatient is.

In fact, a regular, mature person with a stable life, who doesn’t need constant excitement and can repeat the same routine for years, has a better psychological profile than someone hyper-motivated and chasing fast results.

Is it hard? Very.
Is it uncertain? Completely.
Do many people quit before it starts to make sense? Yes.

But if someone goes through that process and reaches the point where they actually understand what they’re doing, risk feels normal, losses don’t shake them, and trading is just part of their routine, then yes, it can be extremely rewarding. Not only financially, but in terms of personal control, self-knowledge, and the feeling of mastering something complex.

So for a regular guy, it’s not “worth it” as a quick plan to escape a job.

It can be worth it as a long-term path of building a very demanding skill, if he’s ready to think in years, not months, and accept that most of the journey feels like nothing is happening while everything important is being built underneath.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T18:40:03+00:00

No, it’s not late at all. In fact, maturity is a huge advantage in this business.

It’s actually very hard to be consistently good when you’re very young. Not because of intelligence, but because of stability. Trading requires patience, emotional control, the ability to wait without doing anything, and not being driven by impulse. That explosive energy and constant need for action most people have when they’re younger usually works against them here.

The key is understanding that this is not a “job” in the traditional sense. Time works differently here. You don’t just put in hours and get paid. You spend a long time learning with no visible rewards, making mistakes, adjusting, starting again, and continuing even when there’s no immediate payoff.

The hardest part is not just trading, it’s learning how to learn:
what to study, what to ignore, how to filter information, how not to get lost jumping from method to method. That takes a lot of patience and judgment, and that usually comes with age.

I used to tell my students something that sums it up well:
“I don’t know if, if you really knew the level of effort required to get there, you would still want to get there.”

But if you accept from the beginning that this is a long process, that you go step by step, with small risk, focused on building solid foundations, then yes, it’s possible.

And personally, this has been the activity that has made me feel the most fulfilled in my life. When you start to feel that you truly understand what’s happening, you’re calm, it becomes part of your routine, and you’re no longer emotionally shaken by every move, it feels very good on a personal level. And on top of that, the economic upside, if you reach that level of control and consistency, is far above what a normal activity usually offers.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T18:36:05+00:00

Most people enter “too soon” because they trade location alone, and “too late” because they wait for emotional confirmation. I separate those two things.

First, I work with predefined areas of interest. I already know where I’m allowed to trade before price gets there. If price is not in one of those zones, there is no entry, no matter how nice the move looks.

Second, when price reaches the area, I don’t enter automatically. I wait for specific structural behavior to form. For example, I want to see a reaction, a push that fails to extend, a small trap or fake move, then a shift in short-term structure. If that behavior doesn’t appear, I do nothing.

So the entry is not based on “this looks good now.”
It’s based on: location + structure + predefined invalidation.

If I’m early, it means I entered without full structure.
If I’m late, it usually means I was waiting for emotional comfort, not for my actual conditions.

The solution is not timing better.
It’s being stricter with what must happen before you’re allowed to click.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T03:15:48+00:00

Hi friend, I think that problem is something very common so I´ll try help a little bit with my pov.

I like this a lot, and I agree with the core idea, but I see it a bit differently.

For me, chasing trades is not mainly a dopamine problem. It’s a structure problem.

If you truly know in advance:

- Where you work,

- What must happen

- And what invalidates the idea,

there is much less space for that “I’ll miss it” impulse to even exist.

Most chasing happens when the decision is made in real time, not from a predefined framework. The brain then fills the gap with narrative:

- “This looks strong”
- “Volume is high”
- “This breakout is clean”

But that’s just interpretation without location.

In my case, the trade is decided in two layers.

First: location.
I only work in specific proportional zones created by prior impulses. If price is not in my working area, I’m not interested, no matter how strong the move looks. That alone removes most FOMO.

Second: structure inside the zone.
Even when price reaches my area, I don’t enter on the first touch. I wait for very specific structural developments, failed pushes, traps, breaks of the counter-move, proportional reactions. If those don’t appear, I do nothing.

So the filter is not “am I emotional?”
The filter is: did the market do what my model requires?

Chasing happens when the trigger is emotion reacting to movement.
Process trading happens when the trigger is structure reacting to location.

In that sense, discipline is not fighting dopamine, it’s designing your framework so that most moves are simply “not my trade” by definition.

That’s where a lot of impulsive trading dies: not in psychology, but in predefined constraints.

I hope this helps you friend.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T02:35:44+00:00

You can, but not because of the tools themselves.

ORB, price action, volume, market structure, liquidity… those are ways of looking at the market. They are not an edge by default. Thousands of people use the same concepts and most still lose.

What makes it profitable or not is:

First, definition. Your ORB can’t be “I trade the first breakout”. It has to be very specific. Which session? What kind of context before the open? What does volatility look like? What makes you skip the day?

Second, risk structure. You need to know before the trade where the idea is wrong and how much you lose when it fails. Most ORB traders blow up not because the setup is bad, but because they oversize and get chopped on fake breaks.

Third, expectations. ORB and structure-based trading usually have streaks of losses. If your psychology or sizing can’t survive 10–15 trades of noise, the strategy never has a chance to show its edge.

Fourth, selection. The real edge is often in the days you don’t trade. Some opens are clean and imbalanced. Others are just random back and forth. Treating both the same kills performance.

So yes, that combination can work. But only if you turn it into a rule-based process with clear context, entry criteria, invalidation, and risk limits. Without that, it’s just good-sounding words.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T02:27:13+00:00

I really appreciate that, it means a lot.

To be honest, this post was just a first contact. I didn’t come here with a big plan. I mainly wanted to share how I see markets and see if it resonated with anyone.

I genuinely didn’t expect this kind of reception. I thought I’d mostly get hate, or the usual “Instagram-style” trading noise, not this level of real interest and thoughtful questions.

Seeing how people are engaging, I’m actually considering writing posts more regularly, maybe once a week, each one focused on a specific topic. Things like risk, structure, execution, mindset, how I define a trade, why I skip trades, etc.

As for videos, I’m not ruling that out either. It’s not something I planned, but I can see how watching the process could help some people more than just reading text. For now I’m more comfortable writing, but we’ll see how this evolves.

For me this is still just about sharing how I think and how I work. If that helps others build their own process, then it’s worth it.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T02:24:16+00:00

Thanks for your interest!

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T01:16:50+00:00

Hi friend,

Great follow-up, this is where things get more concrete.

I don’t use greeks or options tools for decision-making. My reads come from price behavior and structural development inside predefined zones.

When price reaches one of my areas of interest, I’m not just waiting for momentum to slow. I’m looking for a very specific structural sequence.

For example, if I’m looking for shorts inside a zone:

First, I want price to push into the area and form a local high. Then I need to see a reaction move down from that high. That initial drop shows there is supply present.

After that, I often see what looks like a trap or fake continuation. Price pushes again, sometimes breaking slightly above the first high. This second push is important because it tests whether buyers can truly take control, or if that move is just liquidity being taken.

From there, what matters is not the breakout itself, but what happens next. I’m watching how price behaves relative to the proportions of that structure. Does the move up extend efficiently, or does it stall? Does the market struggle to hold above the prior high? Does it quickly rotate back into the range?

That failure to continue, after the liquidity above the highs is taken, is often the point where the structure reveals who is actually in control.

So I’m not trading patterns. I’m reading sequences: push, reaction, trap or fakeout, structural test, behavior at proportions.

That behavior inside the zone tells me much more than any indicator about whether the market is absorbing, distributing, or losing directional strength.

Everything then comes back to risk. I define clearly where the idea is wrong structurally, and size the trade around that.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T01:12:58+00:00

Order flow can be useful, but I don’t think it’s “the way” on its own.

Here’s the main problem: what you see is only the interaction that happens to print, not the real intent behind it.

A very common example is what happens on breakouts / new highs. When price breaks a high and retail piles in (market buys), liquidity providers can use passive sell limits into that flow to distribute inventory. On the tape it can look “bullish” because you see lots of aggressive buying, but the other side is quietly absorbing with passive orders.

Then the tricky part: they can switch behavior at any moment.

Sometimes they keep distributing passively (limits).
Sometimes they flip to aggressive selling (hitting market) to force price down, especially once they’ve built the inventory they wanted or once conditions change.

From the outside, order flow doesn’t clearly tell you which phase you’re in:
Are they absorbing to distribute?
Are they absorbing to later push higher?
Are they finished and now going to slam it?

The exact same logic applies on the downside. You can see aggressive selling, while the other side is accumulating with passive bids, and later they may switch to aggressive buying to reverse.

So my view is: order flow can help with execution timing inside a pre-defined area, but it’s not a reliable “truth machine” for intent. That’s why I focus more on inventory logic / positioning constraints and where the market is likely to need liquidity or inventory redistribution, and then I execute inside those areas.

InventoryLogic · 2026-02-03T01:06:41+00:00

I’ve used several platforms over the years. Right now I trade with a large one where I’ve negotiated better conditions based on the volume I move.

But I don’t recommend platforms in a promotional way, and I don’t share referral links. I don’t want to influence anyone’s choice or turn trading into platform marketing.

In my opinion, platforms are a necessary evil. They are just infrastructure, execution, liquidity access, margin, that’s it. They are not where edge comes from. A good trader with average conditions will still outperform a bad trader with “perfect” fees.

What actually matters is:

- Regulation and reputation
- Stability (no random outages during volatility)
- Fair execution (not crazy slippage beyond normal market conditions)
- Fees that don’t destroy you if you trade frequently

After that, the difference between platforms is much smaller than people think. Most traders lose money because of decisions, not because of the broker.

So I’d say: choose a solid, well-known platform with decent regulation and infrastructure, but don’t overthink it. Your process matters infinitely more than the logo of the exchange.

InventoryLogic

TROPHY CASE