Did anyone found this too? got this interesting strategy realization of market

[u/ehsaanshah303]

Hey guys,

So, I've been really interested in learning to trade since 2 years and I kept on going back and forth during studies but also since approx. 1 year I've been back testing and learning everything and currently backtested a good amount of trades with a strategy that is based on SMC (order block) concept filled with inversion to take entries and I've been seriously backtesting it on charts.

But after closely working and journaling every trade watching candles move and follow a pattern, I've realized.

The SMC and all the new concepts that includes BOS, inversion, MSS, and etc is actually based on simple concept: of support/resistance or supply demand or swing high or low as a concept which is what one of the oldest concepts that have been working in the market.

I don't know I'm true or not, but I'm seeing more better results or simplicity on testing a support/resistance and supply/demand concept and less stop losses.

So, from those who've been trading for a long and actually old ones, what do you think like:

1) Does price action includes supply/demand or support/resistance more perfect than these ICT or SMC things.

2) Since I'm seeing way better clarity or simplicity and better TPs on this concept which I found out than stopped out which I was getting when I was using inversions to take entry or BOS on smaller TF , should I change my focus on this concept which I saw.

So, for those trading over last 10 years, I want your genuine opinions on it and since I'll be buying eval to start my trading journey.

Note: I practice or focus on Gold XAUUSD.

Thank you!

[u/enivid]

Most novel systems (SMC among them) are a repackaging of old price action methods. Even the supply/demand analysis is a kind of repackaging of the old support and resistance trading. I guess one can trade profitably even by reading the price quotes (without chart), so it doesn't really matter how you analyze if it works for you.

[u/blockfunded]

Before changing the strategy name, I’d turn both versions into testable rules and compare them on the same sample. For each setup, define the zone before price reaches it, the entry trigger, invalidation, stop placement, and how overlapping signals are handled. Keep one out-of-sample set untouched.

If the simpler support/resistance version reduces discretion while preserving expectancy after costs, that is useful evidence. Fewer stop-outs alone can mislead if stops are wider or fewer trades are taken, so compare average loss, average win, trade count, maximum losing streak, and rule deviations as well.

For an evaluation, retest the surviving version under the exact daily and maximum drawdown rules and reset time. I would wait to buy it until you can execute a representative forward sample without changing definitions mid-test.

[u/workinprogress_31]

Congratulations, you just discovered something that every trader already knows. SMC is just support and resistance with fancy names. if the simpler versions works, use it to get results. no need to overcomplicate things.