0-14, 14-23 23-35 (Hold the FP FVG's all the way down and you'd still be in the trade)

Heads up and a shout out to @Anthony Carson who has had his first private session with me. We broke down his goals and got really clear on his current starting point. We clarified the foundations and have set some big plans for his future. I love the fact that Tony is a no BS person who is prepared to do whatever it takes to learn and improve, while having fun doing so. Welcome aboard mate. If this resonates with you and you would like to get some one on one training, reach out to me and let's get you going. Now is a great time to do it as I only have two more spots available as I work really hard to over-deliver in each session.

I had a question about targets and what is their purpose. As I was replying it became a bigger answer so I thought I'd make it into a proper post and post it here. I'll also add it to the course. My thoughts are: A target isn't necessarily an instruction to close the trade. It is a definition of what you expect the trade to accomplish. It's an important distinction between trade management and trade planning. The simplest way I can think of to explain it is: When you choose a target, you're answering: "If I'm right about this entry, where should price reasonably go before I expect the opposing side to become relevant?" That gives the trade a destination. It doesn't necessarily mean: "When price reaches this exact level, I MUST close." A target isn't there because the market must stop there. It's there because you need to know where your trade thesis is taking you. Think about driving somewhere. If I say: "Let's drive north." That's not a plan. If I say: "We're driving to Brisbane." Now we have a destination. But if we get to Brisbane and we decide to now change plans and now go to the Sunshine Coast, that's possible. What would be dangerous is getting in the car saying: "We'll just see where we end up." This is where we need to distinguish between the original trade thesis becoming invalid and simply getting a new signal. Suppose: Long entry → target above → invalidation below. If you subsequently get a valid CE → CE short setup before the long reaches target, you have new information. The question isn't: "Did I reach my target?" It's: "Does the new setup invalidate or override the reason I was holding the original trade?" If your strategy says the opposite CE → CE is a legitimate change of bias, then yes: Close long → take short. The target didn't become useless. The target told you where you originally expected the long to go. The market simply gave you new information before it got there. So you have to decide beforehand what your target actually represents.

Probability and learning the Algo paths https://www.skool.com/tradingmadeeasy/classroom/5cc92bf0?md=72aecb1c67db4bea88ca75c2ab2964cc

We're in the trading space, and unfortunately, that means there will always be people out there trying to scam you, including by impersonating me. If you ever receive a message offering trading advice, signals, or an "investment opportunity" — stop before you respond. (I have included some attempted scam profiles here) Here's how to check it's really me: 1. Click on the profile of whoever messaged you. 2. Compare it against my actual profile in this community. 3. If it doesn't match — it's not me. 4. Report the fake profile immediately so we can get it removed and protect other members. Still not sure? Reach out to me directly through my verified profile here in the community and ask. I'd always rather answer ten "is this really you?" messages than have one member get scammed. One rule that will never change: I will never DM you first offering advice or investment opportunities. Ever. If a message like that lands in your inbox claiming to be from me, it isn't. No exceptions. Stay sharp, look out for each other, and when in doubt - verify before you trust.