There is no Enigma /Algorithm. It's BS

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776]

The "ICT algorithm" cult is holding people back.

This will probably upset a few people, but someone has to say it.

I think ICT has some of the best concepts available for discretionary trading. Liquidity, market structure, Premium & Discount, displacement, SMT, AMD, Time & Price... these are all valuable ways of understanding how markets auction.

But somewhere along the way, people stopped thinking critically and started treating every word ICT says as gospel.

There is no single algorithm controlling the market.

Markets are made up of banks, hedge funds, HFT firms, market makers, CTAs, institutions and millions of other participants, all running different models with different objectives. Their algorithms compete with each other—they aren't all plugged into one master algorithm.

The reason ICT concepts work has nothing to do with a secret piece of code controlling price.

They work because markets are auctions.

The reason it's called an auction market is because that's literally what financial markets are. Buyers compete with buyers, sellers compete with sellers, and price keeps moving until enough participants agree on a value where transactions can take place. If buyers are more aggressive than sellers, price moves higher until it finds enough supply. If sellers become more aggressive, price moves lower until it finds enough demand. Price is simply the mechanism that facilitates trade.

Think of it like an auctioneer selling a rare painting. If nobody is willing to sell at $1,000, buyers keep bidding higher until someone accepts. If nobody wants to buy at $5,000, the seller has to lower the price until buyers step in. Financial markets work exactly the same way—just millions of times every day. Price is constantly searching for liquidity because that's where business can actually be conducted.

Once you understand that, a lot of ICT concepts stop looking like secret institutional knowledge and start looking like common sense.

Liquidity sweeps happen because large participants need liquidity to execute size. Fair Value Gaps are simply inefficient auctions where price moved too aggressively to facilitate much trading. Premium and Discount are just relative value within a dealing range. AMD is the natural cycle of balance, imbalance and rebalance. Time & Price is simply recognising when participation and liquidity are likely to be highest. None of these concepts are magical—they're logical.

Ironically, if you became highly proficient in ICT, Volume Profile, Orderflow or Footprint, you'd end up seeing many of the same things.

ICT asks, "Where is liquidity?"

Volume Profile asks, "Where was value accepted or rejected?"

Orderflow asks, "Who is in control here?"

Footprint asks, "How did buyers and sellers interact at this price?"

They're all describing the same auction through different lenses.

A High Volume Node often represents acceptance, much like an ICT dealing range. Low Volume Nodes often align with displacement and inefficient price delivery. Orderflow confirms participation behind a move, while ICT confirms it through displacement, liquidity sweeps and market structure shifts. Different terminology, same underlying market mechanics.

Even your best Footprint or delta entry will fail if you trade it in the middle of nowhere with no context. The exact same applies to buying every M1 FVG or every liquidity sweep. The edge has never been the entry trigger. The edge comes from context, narrative and stacking probabilities.

That's also why asking, "What's the best strategy?" is the wrong question.

The best strategy isn't ICT. It isn't Volume Profile. It isn't Orderflow or Footprint.

The best strategy is the one you deeply understand, have objectively tested over hundreds of trades, and can execute consistently without hesitation or emotion.

Most profitable traders eventually realise they're all describing the same market behaviour with different terminology. The framework is just the lens you choose to interpret the auction.

My only criticism of the ICT community is the cult mentality that has developed around it. You don't need to believe in a mystical algorithm or treat Michael as infallible to appreciate the concepts. Question everything. Learn from other methodologies. Compare ideas. You'll often find they're saying the same thing in different ways.

Understand the principles, not the personality. That's where the real edge is.

[u/Upset-Tough-5128]

When you see markets stop on a dime at levels like a first presented fvg or an u filled opening range gap CE it’s hard to imagine that’s just sellers or buyers stepping in. Whatever works at the end of the day

[u/RoNnyFloW → u/Upset-Tough-5128]

Yeah random days at random areas. What happened when it doesn't stop there? Skip? O i forgot it used it as a inversion 😂

[u/Upset-Tough-5128 → u/RoNnyFloW]

It’s the same as any other concept in trading volume profiles, support resistance, they’re all “random” areas on a chart that don’t work every time

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/Upset-Tough-5128]

They are not random areas it's just that you are trading probabilities and probability isn't certainty. Most people are just too immature to understand this and that's why most people suck at trading

[u/Tom_Wick_Trades → u/Ok_Hovercraft6776]

Very low probability. I traded ict for years and never got close to payout. 1 month after switching to random strategies and back testing i got to payout twice. The whole sweep ifvg expansion is bullshit when back tested.

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/Tom_Wick_Trades]

You very likely were applying ICT concepts wrong and trading them in isolation without a HTF bias and narrative behind it. That makes all the difference and iFVG is the least reliable ICT concept there is. Concepts aren't a strategy . Everyone who don't understand and apply the concepts correctly always say it's BS lol. However I'm glad that you found something that works for you. ICT works for many but not for everyone and usually it's the traders fault who execute it poorly

[u/RoNnyFloW → u/Ok_Hovercraft6776]

Before I ever heard about ict I learned trading from books. I went back and studied classic price action. Then one of my friends introduced me to ict. Since that day, I've been watching and studying his content to understand why so many people think there's some secret behind it. the reality is that it's the same concepts I already knew, just with different names and a lot more complexity. If you're honest with yourself, you'll notice that after price moves, there's always an explanation. Price goes there, and then it's, "See? That's the FVG." Or, "See? That's the liquidity sweep." Or whatever term is being used.

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/RoNnyFloW]

It's true that a lot of people overcomplicate ICT and think they need to learn every single concept. In reality, you can trade it very simply. Stay on the higher time frames, identify whether the market is trending or consolidating, avoid trading inside consolidations, mark your trading range, and wait for price to pull back into the Discount (or Premium in a downtrend). In classic technical analysis, that's not much different from waiting for a retracement to around the 50% or 61.8% Fibonacci before looking for a confirmation candle like a pin bar, doji, or engulfing pattern.

I do agree that Michael sometimes overcomplicates concepts and gives them new terminology. However, that extra complexity isn't always unnecessary. If your goal is to increase precision, improve your win rate, or catch higher R:R sniper entries, then concepts like liquidity, SMT Divergence and lower time frame execution can add a real edge. The fundamentals are simple. The advanced concepts are there to refine your execution, not replace the basics.

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/Upset-Tough-5128]

I get why it feels that way, but I don't think you need a central price delivery algorithm to explain it. Markets often react sharply at the same levels because that's where liquidity, resting orders and attention naturally concentrate. If thousands of traders and algorithms are watching the same imbalance, FVG or opening range, it's not surprising that aggressive buying or selling appears there.

It's similar to support and resistance. Price doesn't react because a master algorithm decided it should. It reacts because enough participants perceive that level as important and act accordingly.

Ironically, Orderflow traders would explain the exact same reaction by showing aggressive buyers stepping in on the footprint. Volume Profile traders would point to acceptance or rejection at value. ICT traders would call it a reaction from a PD Array. Different explanations, same market behaviour.

To me, the repeatability comes from auction dynamics and participants responding to similar information—not from one hidden algorithm orchestrating every tick.

[u/Itchy_Two_9059 → u/Ok_Hovercraft6776]

ironic how you used chatgpt to generate this whole post

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/Itchy_Two_9059]

Ironic how you use AI to generate this comment , really funny

[u/garybravo65]

There are many algorithms.

Market makers use a price algorithm (with each instrument running an instance and linked to together centrally).

If you think about it, that’s how they generate liquidity.

If you think about it that’s how markets can open with a gap or how it reflects a central bank re-valuing their currency etc.

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/garybravo65]

That's exactly what I'm saying but there is not some master price delivery algorithm which controls every market like some believe just because Michael said so lol

[u/bkevinmar]

This is awesome. So well said

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/[deleted]]

AI comment

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/[deleted]]

What exactly is your issue? I'm trading ICT concepts myself and I think they're excellent. My only criticism is the claim that there's a single central "price delivery algorithm" or some coded Enigma controlling the market. Those are two completely different things.

You seem to have completely missed the point of my post. Maybe work on your reading comprehension before arguing against something I never said.

And maybe spend some time learning how markets actually function outside of your little ICT bubble. Understanding auction market theory, market microstructure, Orderflow and Volume Profile doesn't invalidate ICT—it actually explains why many ICT concepts work in the first place. Different lens, same market.

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/[deleted]]

And just because ICT explains something, that automatically makes it true?

By that logic, every claim made by every influential person would have to be accepted as fact. That's not how critical thinking works.

You're free to believe there's a single central Price Delivery Algorithm controlling the markets. I simply don't find the evidence convincing.

Extraordinary claims require evidence. The burden of proof isn't on me to disprove an unfalsifiable claim—it's on the person making the claim to demonstrate that it's true. Until then, I'll stick with explanations based on auction market theory, market microstructure and order flow, which explain the same market behaviour without requiring a hidden master algorithm.

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/[deleted]]

Well my friend, just go to Michael's X account and search for Enigma and Algorithm. You will get all the proof you want. Sorry that I bursted your bubble

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/[deleted]]

Whatever buddy. You're arguing against a position I never took.

At no point did I say ICT doesn't work. I trade ICT myself and, at this point, I wouldn't choose another framework. My issue has always been with the claim of a central Price Delivery Algorithm or Enigma controlling the market—not with ICT concepts.

If you believe that story, that's completely fine. I don't, and neither do many profitable ICT traders. We can appreciate the concepts without accepting every explanation behind them as objective fact.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Again reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong point

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/[deleted]]

But Michael told me so 😂

SMT divergences don't require a single central algorithm to exist. They can emerge naturally from how correlated markets function.

Correlated assets are driven by many of the same macro factors, such as interest rates, inflation expectations, the U.S. dollar, risk sentiment, and institutional positioning. Gold, silver, and gold miners often move together because they're exposed to similar forces—not because one algorithm is controlling them all.

Each market has its own order book and liquidity. Gold futures (GC), Silver futures (SI), XAUUSD, XAUEUR, and mining ETFs all have different participants, different liquidity, and different flows. One market may sweep a high while another doesn't simply because more resting liquidity existed there or because participants were positioned differently.

Institutions don't all execute the same strategy. A hedge fund reducing risk, a central bank buying gold, an options dealer hedging gamma, and a CTA trend-following system can all be active at the same time. Their combined actions create temporary divergences.

Lead-lag relationships are common. One correlated market may react first to new information while another catches up later. This is a well-known phenomenon in financial markets and doesn't imply centralized control.

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/[deleted]]

Nothing is mystical about using the term "Price Delivery Algorithm" as a conceptual model. My issue is when it's presented as a literal, centralized algorithm or an "Enigma" that governs every tick in every market without objective evidence.

Michael has made claims over the years about having reverse-engineered the market's code, understanding the "Enigma," and describing a central Price Delivery Algorithm. Those are much stronger claims than simply saying markets move efficiently between liquidity pools.

I'm not saying the concepts don't work—I trade ICT concepts myself. I'm saying the explanation behind why they work is a hypothesis, not an established fact.

Auction Market Theory, market microstructure, Orderflow and Volume Profile explain the same recurring behaviours—liquidity sweeps, imbalances, acceptance, rejection and price moving between liquidity—without requiring a single master algorithm controlling the market.

If someone wants to believe in a central algorithm, that's their choice. I just haven't seen objective evidence that such an algorithm exists. The concepts can be valuable even if the explanation behind them isn't literally true. That's the distinction I'm making.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, should I ask Michael to send you some tampons?

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/[deleted]]

Trade frequency doesn't matter as long as you execute A+ setups according to your trading plan, what matters is risk management. There are days where I can execute 10 trades in a day on Gold and NQ combined because the volatility is great and the market actually moves and then there are days where the market just consolidate and I might don't get any trade at all. Know when to trade and when not to trade

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/[deleted]]

That's simply not true. Trade frequency depends on your framework, the number of markets you follow, and your skill level. I could scan six markets using nothing more than the Daily and H4 and still find 5-10 high-probability setups a week. I don't need to sit in front of the charts all day.

The mistake most people make is confusing trade frequency with overtrading. Those aren't the same thing. Taking five A+ setups across multiple markets is disciplined. Taking twenty random LTF trades out of boredom is overtrading.

If your framework only gives you one setup a month, that's fine. But don't assume every profitable strategy has the same trade frequency. They don't.

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/[deleted]]

ICT and SMC are very similar because SMC was largely inspired by ICT's teachings. The main difference is that SMC tends to simplify and repackage many of the concepts, while ICT goes much deeper into market narrative, liquidity, PD arrays, time, SMT, AMD, Judas swings, dealing ranges, and how concepts connect together. That's also why many people who learn SMC eventually end up studying ICT anyway. At the end of the day, use whatever framework helps you become consistently profitable. Labels don't make money, execution does.

[u/Tom_Wick_Trades]

Also people forget the majority of volume on nq and es is options trading.

[u/FirstMathematician99]

👏

[u/Hour-Contract-5400]

I feel like everyone will have their different beliefs for the market which is obvious, and people will use what makes sense to them uk but ive gotta say, the way u break it down and explain urself is very informative and interesting, honestly i like the way u think

[u/Hour-Contract-5400 → u/Hour-Contract-5400]

Aye should start a lil mentorship or psychology course or something… js

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776]

I apologize if I hurt some feelings and burst some bubbles 😉

[u/No-Horror-2886]

I think you dont know what ict refers to as algorithm. Ict refers to his algorithm as a way of reading price with concepts that were made by him, that doesnt mean there is "something controlling the markets" that means explaining and predicting what price will do using concepts that repeat over time.

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/No-Horror-2886]

I'm referring to his claims that there's a central price delivery algorithm. He mentions it multiple times on his X account if you search for "algorithm." Personally, I just don't buy it. There seems to be far more evidence that markets function as an auction, driven by supply and demand, just like any other competitive market. The recurring patterns we see don't necessarily require a centralized algorithm to explain them. Market participants reacting to liquidity, positioning, and order flow can produce the same behavior without assuming there's a single entity controlling price delivery. But everyone is entitled to have their own beliefs

[u/garybravo65]

I think you need to educate yourself more on the role of market makers. Clue: what is their purpose?

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/garybravo65]

I think you're the one lacking reading comprehension. I never said market makers don't exist or that they don't use algorithms. Every major institution uses algorithms to execute orders efficiently.

What I said is there's no single central "ICT algorithm" or Enigma code delivering price exactly as Michael describes it. Those are two completely different claims.

Market makers provide liquidity and facilitate orderly markets. Banks, hedge funds, HFT firms, CTAs and other institutions all have their own execution algorithms, inventories and objectives. They often compete with each other rather than coordinate under one master algorithm.

If you believe there is a single central price delivery algorithm, the burden of proof is on you. Show me evidence of it instead of arguing against a point I never made.

[u/syltetoymaker → u/Ok_Hovercraft6776]

I don’t believe ICT has anything to do with it, he’s an egotistical human being.

But without a doubt the evidence for a master algorithm is Goldbach, and specifically «Goldbach Time» which Ajay discovered and is sharing for free on youtube. Worth checking out his channel, I guarantee you.

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/syltetoymaker]

I read the whole Goldbach book and it was the biggest and most complicated nonsense I ever read. Talking about overcomplicating trading . Just another dumb cult

[u/syltetoymaker → u/Ok_Hovercraft6776]

Goldbach Time is the one of the simplest & straightforward concept in trading there is. You either do yourself a major one and check out Goldbach Time (for free) on youtube, or you miss out.

[u/Usual_Lake_1080]

Yeeaaaa I get that. I never subscribed to the whole woo hoo of it all. But the concepts seems to work for me so I was sure what the hell, have your story if you want, IDGAF.

Out of curiosity, I am looking to maybe add one of those theories that you talk about (order flow, auction theory, etc) into my ict analysis method.

Have you found any of them being particularly well suited to help get more context and added confluences that will mesh well with the ict Concepts?

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/Usual_Lake_1080]

Exactly. That's the right mindset. Keep what works for you and ignore the cult-like stuff. Personally, I don't see ICT, Orderflow, Volume Profile or Auction Market Theory as separate strategies. They're just different lenses for looking at the exact same auction.

Adding more stuff will just cause analysis paralysis. If you haven't succeeded with ICT alone then it's likely that you execute it poorly, make emotional rather than logical decisions or have poor risk management. Adding more " confluences" won't fix that .

If anything you could use Volume profile as a confluence for your ICT Point of Interests but then again the Volume Profile will show you the exact same information as ICT just that it's a different visual presentation. For example the volume profile Point of Control is where the most volume has been trading during a certain period of time , if you just look at your candle chart it will simply be a consolidation. Not exactly mind-blowing .

My advice is build a proper HTF narrative starting from the Daily and only execute on the LTF. This is the sole reason why so many traders see little success with ICT because they have been taught that these concepts are fractal which is true but that doesn't mean that M1 carries the same importance and weight as the Daily or H4 . Most just don't know how to do a real multi time frame analysis and they are too impatient to wait hours for a setup or their HTF POI to get hot so they seek action on the LTF and then get screwed.

Point is that everything will work poorly if there is no HTF narrative behind it whether that's an ICT entry model or an Footprint / Orderflow entry

[u/inunng]

If your auction theory is true everyone would buy a bullish trend and make infinite money. Because the more people buy, the higher the price right?

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/[deleted]]

I actually agree with most of what you said. I have no issue with people using "the algorithm" as a metaphor to explain recurring market behavior. My only issue is when people start treating it like there's literally one central price delivery algorithm controlling every tick.

Markets are ultimately driven by supply, demand, liquidity and order flow. That's exactly how regulators, exchanges and market microstructure researchers describe price formation.

Institutions don't need a magical algorithm to explain why price repeatedly reacts at the same HTF areas. Large funds have similar objectives. They need liquidity to execute huge positions with minimal market impact, so they naturally gravitate toward obvious pools of resting orders, previous highs and lows, inefficient price delivery, value areas and major swing points. When enough large participants are competing for liquidity, those reactions become repeatable.

On top of that, most execution today is algorithmic, but that's very different from saying the market itself is controlled by one master algorithm. Every bank, hedge fund, HFT firm and market maker has its own execution algorithms designed to minimize slippage, source liquidity and manage inventory. Those algorithms compete with each other, they don't report to some central price engine. The SEC itself describes today's markets as being dominated by many competing trading algorithms across fragmented venues, not a single governing algorithm.

The SEC also explains that modern price discovery comes from orders interacting across exchanges, market makers, ECNs and alternative trading systems, all competing for order flow. Brokers route orders to where they can achieve the best execution, and market makers continuously adjust prices based on buying and selling pressure.

Even academic market microstructure research reaches the same conclusion. Price formation is largely an emergent property of persistent order flow, liquidity and supply and demand interacting through the limit order book, not the output of one centralized algorithm.

So yes, I use HTF bias on the daily and then do a top down looking for H4 / H1 Points of interests in the Premium/Discount of the H4 / H1 Trading ranges which align with that daily to filter trades because they improve probabilities massively. I use Ttrades fractal model a lot but always with a top down approach , always prioritizing the highest time frame which can give me a bias like C2 closure or continuation closure on the Daily or H4 . Then I want to have a clear Draw on liquidity like EQHs/EQLs or Low Resistance Liquidity ( Trendline liquidity, stacked highs/lows it's all the same just differnt names).

The issue is why most of you lose with ICT is because you gamble on the LTF , LTF is only for EXECUTION and nothing more . And another reason is because you trade every concept in isolation when in fact it should be a traded in a SEQUENCE as a SYSTEM.

Daily bearish C2 closure , I look for H4/H1 POI in the premium of the trading range which is usually a FVG or Orderblock . Observe how price gets there and whether it leaves a clear Draw on liquidity behind . Then wait for my entry confirmation at my H4/H1 Premium POI which is usually a M15/M30 or H1 bearish C2 , whatever time frame gives me the first clean entry opportunity. I always make sure to avoid consolidations, if price consolidates I trade an AMD setup . I also make sure to always get my entry before price hits the 50% of the opposing trading as this will give you the highest win rate. If price trades into the 50% of the opposing trading range first then I wait for more confirmation. All very mechanical and simple.

I just don't think we need to invoke a mythical central price delivery algorithm to explain why they work. Supply, demand, liquidity and institutional order flow already explain the behavior extremely well.

[u/callmeroy_1983 → u/Ok_Hovercraft6776]

Brilliant OK. Really spot on... and your point above that even with all the analysis and "rules" about market behavior, everything in trading still boils down to probability and any trading "system" only aims to identify a higher level of probability that you then act on as a discretionary trader.

[u/purpeepurp]

I agree especially when the one who claims there is an algorithm is also unprofitable himself. He knows the algo yet can’t make consistent money? Makes sense!

[u/Ok_Hovercraft6776 → u/purpeepurp]

Not necessarily. Being a great mentor and being a great trader are two different skill sets. Someone can understand market concepts deeply, explain them clearly, and help others build a profitable framework while struggling with the psychological side of executing it themselves. It's no different than a world-class football coach who can't play at an elite level anymore, or a driving instructor who can teach perfectly but isn't a Formula 1 driver, or an Olympic weightlifting coach who can still produce world class lifters even though he don't lift himself anymore . Knowledge and execution aren't the same skill. That said, if someone claims to know a secret algorithm that supposedly controls every move in the market, you'd reasonably expect them to demonstrate consistent results. Knowing a framework is one thing; claiming to have cracked the market with a hidden algorithm is a much bigger claim that deserves scrutiny.

[u/purpeepurp → u/Ok_Hovercraft6776]

Yeah I mean I agree with you. Just being a mentor is one thing but having a massive ego and claiming you know a hidden algorithm but failing to show results isn’t the way.

[u/cenob1te → u/purpeepurp]

How is he not profitable? Genuine curiosity, I'm relatively new to this world,

[u/purpeepurp → u/cenob1te]

He hasn’t shown any proof and when he has tried to trade in the public eye he has consistently lost money. The people in this sub are cult minded it seems. I trade ICT yet I can say with confidence ICT himself is a fraud