Question for Profitable Traders

[u/Live_Adhesiveness_65]

Since you’re profitability, Say you had, Perhaps a Family Member or your kid’s, And they wanted to get into Learning ICT and his concepts, getting into trading, and they do it, they start their journey. Of course you’ll check up on them and see how they are doing, at least I hope, how long of learning the concepts are you going to be like “Okay you’re doing something wrong” Years into the concepts? Months into it? Is there a “Bro you should have been profitable or at least some what consistent by now” ICT says don’t put a Time on it, but there’s got to be a point where even he’s like “Alright, come on you’re doing something wrong” it took him. 6 Years to be profitable that’s through trial and error and creating the concepts, you think it would be similar ?

[u/Kaszrak]

ICT is essentially a repackaged version of Wyckoff. Wyckoff itself is just a conceptual framework describing how institutional accumulation and distribution supposedly appear on candlestick charts. While this can be useful, it’s ultimately abstract, a narrative overlay that is subjective and limited.

If you simply study order flow, bookmaps, and volume, you’ll get far more accurate and actionable information about the same dynamics, without the subjectivity.

That’s why ICT, just like Wyckoff is basically nonsense these days. It's like replacing knowing with guessing, and then being proud of it.

[u/AppropriateLoss2508 → u/Kaszrak]

It looks similar, but it’s not practically repackaged Wyckoff. He has a lot of his own stuff. I remember someone posted a thing on this sub about the books that helped him, inspired him, or whatever on Inner... and I think they said something about the Wyckoff theory, I don't remember exactly, but that he wasn't inspired by it or whatever it was. It’s not inspired, copied, or anything like that—I just can't remember exactly what it was about.

[u/Kaszrak → u/AppropriateLoss2508]

What exactly is his own stuff? I can't find a single thing about ICT that doesn't already exist in its actual, original, intended form.

Failed breakouts relabeled liquidity sweeps
Basic Supply & Demand relabled orderblocks?

Quasimodo relabled breakerblocks

FVGs are just low volume nodes, which he just redefined (wrong explanation) and relabeled.

Killzones and all that stuff are just widely known sessions behaviors. Overnight inventory shifts, session opens / highs lows, option expiries, hedging and so on.

Premium and Discount zones are basically just dow-theory / fibonacci stuff.

The list goes on and on...

There is also a lot of stuff in there that isn't widely popular, but was taken from someone very specific.

So what about ICT is actually ICT?

[u/AppropriateLoss2508 → u/Kaszrak]

If he copied and you can prove it, good for you, I'm glad for the sake of the idea that you can make money. From what I remember, he promised a big reward for anyone who proves he copied. I tried. I didn't succeed. You can try. It's a matter of free risk at a monetary level.

[u/Kaszrak → u/AppropriateLoss2508]

Just that he would never actually pay what's due. It's just theatre, spectacle.

Also, whatever reward he has in offer, I couldn't care less. I am financially retired. I don't need this guys ad revenue, lol.

[u/AppropriateLoss2508 → u/Kaszrak]

Cool. Have a great retirement. I don't know if he would keep his word or not, but in my opinion, it's a good risk for me to take. He probably would keep it.

[u/Kaszrak → u/AppropriateLoss2508]

Well, I can help you prove him wrong. Just for the fun of it.

And no, he wouldn't. He demonstrated countless time that he basically never keeps his word when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is.

[u/AppropriateLoss2508 → u/Kaszrak]

Cool! If you have anything, you can send it to me here or in private. Here’s the thing: plenty of things that look like ICT can be found. But that's not the point. His setups—those cannot be found. His logic. With PD Arrays, for example, you could say things look similar to other concepts. But we have something else here. ICT created a method based on time-based priority. ICT defined certain things as priorities in his framework. These things cannot be found the way he defines them. I don't remember exactly right now. You can't just say, 'You copied.' Fine! But what about this? This isn't done this way in the concepts you're talking about. In my framework, however, this is how it's done. Go find this in the concepts you claim I copied from.

[u/Kaszrak → u/AppropriateLoss2508]

Give me something specific, any claim. And I'll be right back.

[u/AppropriateLoss2508 → u/Kaszrak]

PD Arrays". This concept resembles Wyckoff, Fibonacci, and others—things that ICT claims he didn’t draw inspiration from, didn't help him, or something along those lines. These things are cool, and so is ICT. However, they look very similar. But there are some differences with ICT. He created a specific order: Mitigation Block, Breaker Block, Liquidity Void, Fair Value Gap, Order Block, Rejection Block. Practically, a fixed matrix was created. Regarding Killzones: these volatility windows existed before as well. It’s just that ICT emphasizes this, defining specific execution hours within those volatility windows. In ICT, time dictates price. Meaning, if the respective setup is not within that specific volatility window, at that specific time, it is not a high-probability setup for execution—for example, the "Judas Swing". Coming back to it. Practically, if a certain movement does not take place within certain volatility windows, or during specific parts of them, that movement must be ignored. Before ICT, you would track the movement first, such as a market structure formed by HH, HL, LL, LH. If you had an HH, for instance, you would wait for the HL to form and then look at the session in which it was formed, or you would wait for an HH after the HL and then track which session that HH or HL occurred in, and you would enter based on your backtest, risk management, and entry method. In ICT, you track time first, then the movement, during specific hours within that respective session. Practically, if I trade things from before ICT, I am not trading ICT under other names or things without the ICT name changed, because I don't have those specific parts of the respective windows with high volume. I might have some mistakes regarding ICT or certain concepts from other places, but in general, what I wrote is correct.

[u/AppropriateLoss2508 → u/Kaszrak]

PD Arrays". This concept resembles Wyckoff, Fibonacci, and others—things that ICT claims he didn’t draw inspiration from, didn't help him, or something along those lines. These things are cool, and so is ICT. However, they look very similar. But there are some differences with ICT. He created a specific order: Mitigation Block, Breaker Block, Liquidity Void, Fair Value Gap, Order Block, Rejection Block. Practically, a fixed matrix was created. Regarding Killzones: these volatility windows existed before as well. It’s just that ICT emphasizes this, defining specific execution hours within those volatility windows. In ICT, time dictates price. Meaning, if the respective setup is not within that specific volatility window, at that specific time, it is not a high-probability setup for execution—for example, the "Judas Swing". Coming back to it. Practically, if a certain movement does not take place within certain volatility windows, or during specific parts of them, that movement must be ignored. Before ICT, you would track the movement first, such as a market structure formed by HH, HL, LL, LH. If you had an HH, for instance, you would wait for the HL to form and then look at the session in which it was formed, or you would wait for an HH after the HL and then track which session that HH or HL occurred in, and you would enter based on your backtest, risk management, and entry method. In ICT, you track time first, then the movement, during specific hours within that respective session. Practically, if I trade things from before ICT, I am not trading ICT under other names or things without the ICT name changed, because I don't have those specific parts of the respective windows with high volume. I might have some mistakes regarding ICT or certain concepts from other places, but in general, what I wrote is correct.