On CT you will see a lot of people posting setups, discussing charts etc. I've been doing the same thing for a couple of years now.
But to be fair, my trading has only been so so. I haven't been very profitable and there's been a lot of break even trading for a long time. My main wins in crypto have mostly come from finding a couple of good narratives and coins, rather than consistently making money trading.
After having some significant drawdowns I started looking for a system. I ended up favoring trend following, mainly because I wanted something systematic that allowed me to catch the meat of a move instead of trying to predict every top and bottom.
That's been a journey of almost 3 years now. About 2 years ago I entered The Haven and got familiar with the EMA/MA system taught there by Pierre and Krillin.
I started trading much more actively because I enjoyed it and wanted to get the reps in. But despite all those reps, the results have still been pretty mediocre. Mostly break even at best.
My assumption for quite some time has been that basic TA and finding setups aren't really my main problem.
I think people often mistake that for being the difficult part of trading. That once you learn how to read a chart and find good setups, it's smooth sailing from there.
I can assure you, it's not.
It's just the beginning.
So over the last couple of weeks I've been working with my AI assistant on properly journaling my trades. Not just logging entries and exits, but trying to reconstruct my decisions and find where I'm actually leaking performance.
For some context, attached a screenshot of my current 100k eval. I think the equity curve illustrates pretty well why I'm doing this exercise in the first place.
This was my AI assistant's first assessment after going through my trades:
"My first assessment is that there is enough evidence to keep trading and investigate the edge further, but not enough to conclude that the strategy has proven positive expectancy yet.
The strongest part so far is setup identification, particularly COM setups. The main weakness is execution: fear affects sizing and participation, good trades are often underfilled, profits are sometimes not realized at logical levels, and there have been avoidable order-management mistakes.
My current hypothesis is that the playbook is better than the realized P&L suggests, with execution currently being the main source of performance leakage. The next priority should therefore be consistent execution and a larger sample—not increasing risk."
I think that's actually a pretty fair assessment of where I'm at.
Now the goal is to keep collecting the data, find out whether there actually is an edge underneath all of this and, if there is, stop fucking it up with poor execution.
And yes, this post was also created using my AI assistant.
🫡🫡