FUTURES SAMURAI

You’re not in the trading business. You’re in the martial arts business.
Futures & Options | Author | Traderalysis™

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

WHAT IF ICT’S FVG WERE FILED AS A PATENT APPLICATION?

Somebody had to file it. So I did — hypothetically.

Forget the man, the terminology — but ask when the concept and structure related to FVG was published independently of ICT.

https://t.co/ZKwilS31jv

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

“FVG” taught by Al Brooks in 2012.

Brooks published the same 3-bar structure years earlier in one of his books. He called it a “micro measuring gap.” Strong trend bar, outer two bars don't overlap. Also named its midpoint — the 50% level. Full write up shortly.

#FVG #ICT

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

@jadecap_ Got lucky once. Try to repeat it with full documentation.

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

@jadecap_ BS

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

Just saw that Michael did leave me a final response before blocking me. With one word:

“Bye.”

Fair enough. No hard feelings.

I did not see it until after I last posted.

I meant what I wrote. I learned from you, ICT, and I remain grateful to you for what I learned.

What I learned from you became part of what allowed me to trade the way I did in today’s live session —not SIM, not prop, not paper trading.

This is MOM. (My Own Money). ROTH.

But how I trade today is my own: a blend of ICT, Al Brooks, and Japanese warrior wisdom and philosophy, shaped by years of my own market experience.

I call it — The Martial Arts of A Trade (TMAAT).

I also meant what I said about respecting other traders, walk your own path and think independent. Like a Samurai.

So —thank you for the lessons, Michael.

さようなら。

Bye.

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

Well, that didn’t take long.

I criticized Michael Huddleston’s statement that other traders’ work is “Mickey Mouse analysis” and that they should “stay in your lane.”

I also said something that matters to me: I learned from him. I benefited from his teaching. I gave him credit for it then, and I still do now.

His response was to block me. That’s his right. But there is a larger lesson here that has nothing to do with ICT.

A student does not owe a teacher permanent intellectual obedience.

At some point, you have to leave the dojo.

You take what your teacher gave you. You test it against the market. You discard what does not survive. You add what you discover yourself. Eventually, if you are actually developing, your trading becomes yours.

That is what happened to me.

ICT is part of my development as a trader. He is not the owner of it.

And disagreement does not erase gratitude any more than gratitude requires silence.

Apparently I crossed into his lane.

So I’ll stay in mine.

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

I learned from you, Michael, and I have no problem saying that publicly. I benefited from your teaching, and I give credit where credit is due.

But owing someone respect for what you learned from him does not mean surrendering your own judgment. Calling other traders’ work “Mickey Mouse analysis” and telling them to “stay in your lane” crosses a line for me.

Markets are bigger than any one trader, any one methodology, and any one teacher. There are successful traders who arrived at their understanding of price long before ICT existed, and there will be successful traders who develop approaches long after all of us are gone.

A good student should eventually learn to think independently—even of his teacher.

I respect what I learned from you. I don’t respect degrading other traders to establish your own superiority. Those two things can be true at the same time. Glad I unfollowed you before this crossed into my lane.

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

@I_Am_The_ICT You are arrogant, man.

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

MOM-IN-LAW UPDATE: I ALMOST TOOK OUT MY CREDIT CARD
Family disclaimer: I love my wife and my real in-laws. None of them has anything to do with this post. Blame the acronym. 😄

Yesterday, I shared my search for a MOM-IN-LAW—a prop account that I can trade the way I trade MOM. Purdia’s 100K EOD Evaluation looked promising: EOD drawdown, DLL and 10 minis/100 micros. No obvious TNTWMD or BOMB embedded.

One question remained, though: what happens when I reach Live? So I asked Purdia if I could hold 2 ES + 1 MES from Day One. Support emailed: yes. The initial 100K Live limit is 5 minis/50 micros. That fits my probing with micros, then attacking with minis.

The econ made sense. At $129 with discount and a $1 activation promotion if passed, the price—about one good sushi dinner—seemed reasonable for transferring risk away from MOM. A little like sending in the drone instead of risking the pilot.

I was almost ready to take out my credit card and click “Continue to Payment.”

Then I thought: I’ve met the in-laws. I haven’t lived with them.
So I kept digging. I found successful payout reports, but also complaints on delays and communication. Reviews prove little, and I won’t label a firm from a handful of posts.

Then this recent post caught my attention. An 8/4/26 Reddit post reproduced what the poster said was an email from Purdia concerning its Instant accounts. The reproduced message says the structure had “increasingly been exploited” and that additional Risk & Compliance measures were being implemented, including enhanced review of payouts above $500.

https://t.co/vSl4jPiia9

To be fair, that was Instant, not the 100K EOD acct. I was considering. I won’t automatically transfer one account’s issue to another, and I don’t fault a firm for protecting itself against genuine abuse.

But it introduced something my TNTWMD-BOMB screen hadn’t adequately measured: rule stability and discretion.
A structure can fit my trading blueprint beautifully on paper. But if I’m uncertain what may happen between making the profit and receiving it, then I haven’t really found my MOM-IN-LAW.

The $129 hardly matters. My father taught me long ago not to be “penny-wise and pound-foolish.” A sushi dinner to test an account may seem trivial, but the real price isn’t $129. It is accepting a relationship whose rules and discretion I may not be comfortable living with.

Wage Day matters too.

So I looked at “Continue to Payment” once more—and put the credit card back in my wallet. Purdia is off my MOM-IN-LAW list for now. Not because I concluded it is a bad firm. I haven’t. The uncertainty exceeds what I’ll accept.

Sometimes an in-law looks wonderful across the dinner table.
Living with them is another matter.

If you’ve actually traded Purdia’s EOD program and requested a payout, tell me what happened—good or bad. I want both.
NFA. #FuturesSamurai #FuturesTrading #PropFirm #TNTWMD #BOMB

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

LOOKING FOR MOM-IN-LAW

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

LOOKING FOR MOM-IN-LAW: Purdia Capital?

MOM-IN-LAW = MOM (My Own Money) IN
Locked Away till Wage.
TNTWMD (Totally Nothing To do With My
(Trader) Development).
BOMB (Barrier Obstructing My (Trading)
Blueprint)
More details in https://t.co/uHpvFsQmNt

I went looking for a futures prop account with a simple question: can I find one that lets me trade substantially the way I trade MOM?

Not identical to MOM. That would be asking too much. But close enough that the rules do not force me to redesign my trading plan just to accommodate the HOUSE.

So I searched backward. Instead of asking which firm has the biggest account, cheapest evaluation or most attractive payout, I screened for the absence—or reduction—of what I call TNTWMD and BOMB.

A number of firms/accounts I examined did not fit my MOM or MOM-IN-LAW criteria: Lucid, Topstep, Apex Trader Funding, Take Profit Trader, My Funded Futures, Tradeify, TradeDay, Bulenox, Alpha Futures, E8 Futures, Legends Trading and Phidias.

Different firms/accounts did not fit my screen for different reasons. I am not saying every firm has every rule, nor am I rating these firms generally. They simply did not fit what I am looking for.

Then I came across Purdia Capital’s 100K EOD account.

Interesting.

What I have examined so far looks closer to my trading blueprint: $3,000 maximum drawdown, EOD trailing rather than intraday trailing, and position sizing that, based on what I have found so far, appears capable of accommodating my basic execution — probe with micros, then strike with 1-2 minis when convicted by probe.

There are still evaluation, subscription/activation, progression and payout conditions. But a rule is not automatically TNTWMD or BOMB simply because I don’t like it or because it costs money. The question is whether it serves a legitimate function without unnecessarily changing how I trade.

Payout restrictions don’t necessarily bother me either. With MOM, I don’t withdraw profits every afternoon. I trade and pay myself periodically—perhaps biweekly or monthly. So I’m OK with this MOM-IN-LAW.

There is one important difference, thoughh. With MOM, the money is mine and I can take it whenever I want. With MOM-IN-LAW it is locked away until payout request which is not unlike wage.

So I can tolerate waiting for payday with MOM-IN-LAW. What I don’t want are banana peels thrown onto the road while I’m trying to drive, as in the HOUSE.

So, is Purdia my MOM-IN-LAW?

Not yet. It is a candidate. I still need to investigate the progression into funded stages, position sizing, payout mechanics and, most importantly, whether the rules work in practice the way they appear on paper.

If you have actually traded Purdia—especially this exact 100K account —I would like to hear about it. Were you paid? Timely? Any surprises not obvious before you started? And if you know another futures prop account that comes even closer to MOM, please put it in the comments. Thank you.

The search continues.

NFA. #FuturesSamurai #ICT #ES #Purdia #Propfirm

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

Prop traders —

Have you or your loved one been affected by prop firm’s “consistency rules”?

Trade well, watch your target move further away.

Pass the evaluation, get funded but lose half your position size to another rule, “scaling.”

I have. Traded Lucid 25K acct: target $1,500. Max drawdown: $1,000. Got 2 minis or 20 micros as ammunition.

Day 1 closed at $1,584.50 — past target, max loss never touched. Dashboard reset the target to $3,169, exactly twice my best day.
Day 2 passed the eval with $1,600 profit, beating the moved goal post.
Day 3, got funded but ammunition got cut to 1 mini or 10 micros.
Story detailed in the accompanying document linked below.

I devised and applied one test to 14 prop firm rules.

Six rules earn their place. Six other don’t.

Full case file — 37 pages:

https://t.co/m6C6aGllll

Or on LinkedIn:

https://t.co/PJKPq0Jo8F

#fundedtrader #futures

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

Edward — your post sent me down a rabbit hole. I had never seriously looked at GFT Instant Premium until I saw this.

I recently published a paper examining funded-trader rules through a test I call TNTWMD — Totally Nothing To do With My (Trader) Development. LucidFlex was the original case study, but the framework was meant to travel.

GFT Premium is now my first follow-up case. No consistency rule immediately caught my attention. Then I found the 1.5% Floating Loss Limit.

My conclusion on the FLL: it depends.

It depends on how the trader actually trades his own money—MOM. For some trading styles the FLL can alter a legitimate process; for others, including the way I trade, the limit provides enough room that it should rarely interfere with a properly managed position. For my trading style and risk profile it does no harm so I don’t consider it a TMTWMD.

So I’m adding a new verdict to the TNTWMD framework: DEPENDS.

Your post is what led me to this discovery, so thank you. Here is the original paper:

https://t.co/m6C6aGllll

Or on LinkedIn:

https://t.co/PJKPq0Jo8F

I love to trade this plan but unfortunately the platforms and the instruments are not in my backyard, which is NinjaTrader or TradingView and CME futures.

If you have traded Premium yourself, I’d especially like to hear your experience. I’m collecting real trader observations for the continuing TNTWMD Addendum.

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

This Lucid 25K Flex account’s profit goal was $1,500. Max drawdown was $1,000. Less room to be wrong than I needed to be right — that’s the box every session got traded in.

Took me two days instead of one to pass because of the 50% consistency rule: $3,184.75 total against a goal that started at $1,500 and moved to $3,169 because of that rule.

Here’s the part that should bother every prop trader: you can’t ride the market structure on a day like either of these two days or be penalized for it. It is like forbidding Muhammad Ali from throwing any more punches when the opponent is on the ropes because he already passed his punch quota for the day.

Day one (Aug 3): gained $1,584.50, $834.5 over the 50% “consistency rule” limit. Now the new profit goal is $3,169 — not $1,500 anymore.
Day two (Aug 4): made $1,600.25 to clinch the moving goalpost and stopped out by the system.

Why call this rule “consistency?” How can it make a trader be consistent? More correct to call it “pass interference” than a disciplined tackle.

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

$SPCX Day 34.

Low: 107.57. Close: 108.37.

Bears smashed through the pickleball net. Bulls nearly off the court entirely.

100 is the next psychological level. Below that: 95.88 measured move.

Weekly chart now showing the full damage — seven consecutive red weeks from the Day 3 high of 225.61.

No reversal signal. Still following the trajectory.

Not a trade rec. #FuturesSamurai #SPCX #SSPCX

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

@I_Am_The_ICT @YouTube Can you please review ES too if there is material difference between NQ and ES? Thanks.

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

A 400-year-old Samurai taught me today’s session.

🗡️ Saguri — probe
⚔️ Kogeki — attack
💀 Sutemi — throw the body in, no half measures
🌑 Mokusatsu — the silence after, when not trading is the trade

209 points gained.
60 points risked as daily loss limit
R:R 3+, post-commission.

The sword that wins isn’t the one that swings most. It’s the one that knows which word the moment is calling for.

NFA. #FuturesSamurai #ICT

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

Fed day and the tape still won’t pick a direction.

ES chopped in a 40-handle band most of the morning — no real follow-through either way, just noise around the 7400 handle. I sat on my hands through the chop and waited for the one leg that actually moved.

Caught it. $2,545.06 net on 4 trades, 3 winners, 1 loser. Largest win $1,558.14. Largest loss $154.36. Profit factor 17.49.

Ranging markets punish overtrading. Patience paid today.

NFA #FuturesSamurai #ICT #ES

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

@I_Am_The_ICT Similar ES Short campaign near target.

[FUTURES SAMURAI @FuturesSamurai]

ES 07/20/26 AM Session.
Probed with 1 lot near FVG. Price confirmed — scaled to 8, targeting the mid of the opening gap down, in line with the liquidity draw at the low of the 0300 PST H4 candle. Pullback came hard, got rejected right at a bear FVG. That rejection is the whole trade — stop stayed put through it. Added 2 more on the rejection, 10 total, full size.

+$2,860 net. Campaign lasted 15 minutes.

Not financial advice — educational/entertainment only.
#FuturesSamurai #ICT #ES