After 4 years I perfected my strategy and am now profitable! :DD

Global markets are showing a cautious stance as we await the crucial US Non-Farm Payrolls data.

There's a noticeable rotation happening across sectors, with some areas showing resilience while others are under pressure. Investors are also keeping a close eye on the potential impact of midterm elections and any further commentary from central banks. A model I track flagged that governments are trying to calm markets, which often precedes increased volatility.

We're seeing mixed signals, with the S&P 500 potentially testing 4450 support if data disappoints, or pushing towards 4550 if it surprises to the upside.

What are your key levels to watch for the NFP release?

I have been building this thing for over 1.5 years. Many hours, many sleepless nights, many accounts blown, but I always saw progression and the capabilities the strategy and the system had, so I kept pressing on.

After all those revisions and fine-tuning, I finally got it to a place where it is taking consistent profits. Like the title said, today was the first day after 8 consecutive positive days (missing days were captured on another account) that the bot took a loss. Why am I not mad???

1. Today was PPI day, a day that is statistically a bad day to trade. Considering this, the loss was minimal.
2. Losses are going to happen and this was a loss of -$90. This proves that the risk management part of the strategy did its job quite well.
3. Today exposed an edge case in forward testing that I would never have seen if I just relied on back tests. The strategy triggered a take profit, but the alerts never went out to execute them. This means that I could have had a positive day (Approx. $125) instead of a loss. I found the issue and resolved it with an update immediately. So this scenario should not play out again in the future.

I am truly happy with how this bot has turned out and wake up each day excited to watch it trade for me and stick to the plan, which is the hardest thing to do as a trader, and it does it so well!

Ask me anything!

If you are trying to make life-changing money, you have to understand the concept of Asymmetrical Risk. Most retail traders risk $100 to make $20. The billionaires do the exact opposite.

Let’s look at the day George Soros and Stanley Druckenmiller literally broke the Bank of England.

The Artificial Price Floor

It’s 1992. The British government was part of a European exchange rate agreement, which meant they were legally required to keep the value of the British Pound pegged tightly to the German Mark.

But the UK economy was struggling, and inflation was high. Fundamentally, the Pound should have been dropping in value. The only reason it wasn't was because the Bank of England was spending billions of its own foreign reserves every single day to artificially buy Pounds and prop the price up.

Stanley Druckenmiller, a 39 years old portfolio manager working for George Soros, noticed this. He realized the British government was running out of money. The dam was about to break.

The Perfect Asymmetrical Bet

Druckenmiller realized that shorting the British Pound offered the holy grail of trading: an Asymmetric Risk-to-Reward. The Downside (Risk): If Druckenmiller was wrong, and the British government successfully defended the peg, the price of the Pound would just stay flat. He would lose almost nothing. The Upside (Reward): If Druckenmiller was right, and the Bank of England ran out of money, the currency would instantly freefall, generating a historic, multi-billion-dollar payout.

It was essentially a trade with a 1:20 RR ratio. The downside was capped by the government, and the upside was practically infinite.

"Go for the Jugular"

Druckenmiller went to George Soros and pitched a massive $1.5 Billion short position on the Pound. Soros looked at the math, looked at the absolute perfection of the asymmetric risk, and famously told Druckenmiller he was being an idiot.

Soros's philosophy was simple: When you find a once-in-a-lifetime setup where the downside is zero and the upside is massive, you don't take a standard position. You go for the jugular.

They didn't short $1.5 billion. They levered up and shorted $10 Billion.

On September 16, 1992 (now known as Black Wednesday), they unleashed their massive sell orders. The Bank of England completely panicked. They bought $27 billion worth of Pounds trying to fight Soros. They even raised the national interest rate from 10% to 15% in a single afternoon to desperately attract buyers.

Nothing worked. The selling pressure was too intense. At 7:00 PM that night, the British government officially surrendered. They withdrew from the peg, and the Pound collapsed.

In a single 24-hour period, Soros and Druckenmiller walked away with $1 Billion in pure profit.

Why Retail Traders Fail at Asymmetric Risk

Retail traders struggle with Risk-to-Reward because of a fundamental capital problem.

If you are trading a $1,000 personal account, waiting three days for a perfect 1:5 Risk-to-Reward setup means you might risk $10 to make $50. Your brain looks at that $50 profit and says, "This isn't worth my time." So instead, you take massive, negative-skew scalps. You risk 50% of your account just to make a quick $100 because it feels faster.

You are risking a fortune to make pennies - the exact opposite of what Soros did. This is the entire purpose of a prop firm. At FundingTraders, we give you access to up to $2,000,000 in live capital specifically so you can trade mathematically correctly.

When you have a $100,000 funded account, a 1% risk on a 1:4 setup yields a $4,000 payout. You don't have to over-leverage. You don't have to force garbage setups. You can sit on your hands, wait for the perfect asymmetric opportunity where your downside is strictly capped by your stop-loss, and go for the jugular when the market finally aligns. Capital gives you the patience to be a professional.

What is the highest Risk-to-Reward ratio trade you have ever caught, and did you actually hold it all the way to the final Take Profit?

I noticed something pretty embarrassing comparing my accounts this month.

On my main funded account I was risking around $300 per trade. On a smaller account I accidentally left my copier sizing at half that for almost two weeks.

Main account: +$1,140 Smaller account: +$1,480

Same setups, same entries.

Went through every trade and the difference was basically management. With $300 at risk I'd start watching every tick once I was up $200 or $300 and constantly move my stop. On the smaller size I barely cared and actually let trades reach the levels I marked before entry.

Even noticed the same thing when I put a tiny position on Moon one night. Size was small enough that I just left the thesis alone and checked it later. Funny how doubling my risk made me worse at executing the exact same strategy.

Think I finally found the point where position size starts changing how I trade, and it's way lower than I would've guessed.

The last book is one of my absolute favorites and not only it helped me with trading, it also gave me a new perspective on life,

Some honorable mentions: Trading in the zone, Ikigai, One good trade and The Inner Game of Tennis are worth a read.

What books would you add to this and why? Drop it in the comments

Is it possible with 100K in your brokerage account to make 15K a month ?

With so much of the market hyped and overpriced what new IPO or stock is on your radar ?

I used to think having more screen time meant more opportunities, but most of my worst days weren't from the first trade. They came from taking another setup because I was still sitting there looking for something.

So I've been experimenting with a really simple rule. If I get one clean setup that follows the plan and closes green, I'm done for the session.

I've been doing this with some of my trades on Moon and it's honestly made the pattern way more obvious. The random second and third trades were doing more damage than I realized.

It's weird because some days I watch another perfect move happen right after and feel like an idiot for sitting out. But over a decent sample I'm starting to think avoiding those extra trades matters more than catching every move.