People refuse to accept the sample size.
No matter how much they preach about consistency, everyone still tries to squeeze the max out of a single trade. We all know your edge plays out over 20-50 trades. Yet, everyone wants validation and profit right now. The problem? The long game is boring. It’s routine.
People want action and dopamine. So, the self-deception begins: "an aggressive trade will bring faster results."
Executing a Monday open after a news drop isn't trading. It's guessing. One trade doesn't dictate your results. Repetition does.
Daily chart time. Journaling. Reviews. Structure. Discipline. Finding out exactly why you deviated from your rules.
It’s boring. But it’s the only thing that actually works. Random trades over a sample size = negative EV. Impulse entries = negative. Random M5 sweeps = negative. Any deviation from the system = negative.
Over a large sample size, it always ends exactly the same way. FOMO is the account killer.
You see a "perfect" setup outside your model, think you missed out, and abandon your edge. You start taking everything just to make a buck.
Traders don't blow accounts in one trade. They blow them chasing short-term gratification. Your job is simple: Focus on executing your system, not the PnL.
A system isn't just about entries. It’s about constraints. Narrowing your focus. Eliminating the noise.
News, manipulations, impulses—that's all noise. Trading is executing the exact same setup dozens of times in a row.
You don't focus on the result. You focus entirely on the process.
#TradingPsychology #SMC #TradingJourney #ProcessOverProfits
For three years, the main horror story sounded the same: "What happens when Saylor starts selling?" On Monday, we found out: MicroStrategy dumped 3,588 BTC for 216 million—the largest sale in the company's history. And what did the market do? Dipped under 62k, thought about it for a couple of hours, Trump came to the rescue, and everything was bought right back up. Today it's already at 64k+.
Anyway, here’s what we have. They sold at an average of ~$60.2k against their buy-in of $75.5k—meaning they realized a loss just to pay dividends on preferred shares (including that very STRC, which now pays 12% APY). They still have 843,775 BTC and 2.55 billion in cash on their balance sheet. Plus, on June 29th, they announced a $1.25 billion "BTC monetization program." Selling is now officially part of their model.
Why did this happen? The old flywheel was beautiful: MSTR trades higher than its BTC—you print shares at a premium, use the revenue to bag more BTC, the premium grows, and you repeat. At the end of June, MNAV fell below 1—the company became worth less than the BTC on its balance sheet, so printing shares became unprofitable. But dividends still need to be paid. That's the whole secret, no conspiracy theories—just pure accounting. By the way, in June I dropped a PDF "about the latest Saylor drama"—it explained why STRC is a perp-long and that the dividend won't pay itself. Well, #Saylor picked his option from the table.
The first sale (32 BTC, a laughable 2.5 million) in June caused a panic because it shattered the "never sell" belief. Yesterday's was a hundred times bigger, and the market ate it up in a couple of hours: they bought the news and created a whipsaw. MSTR opened at -4.5% and closed at -1.4%. I actually think this is a positive—there's now cash for 17 months of dividends, and it's easier for BTC to find a bottom without smart money constantly dumping on cooldown.
A special highlight: Saylor's tweet about the sale ends with the words "we hodl." A strategic Saylor moment.
So what's next? I would keep an eye on #STRC: if it returns to par value at a hundred, the issue is closed; if it heads down, they'll sell more. My May flip of tokenized MSTR says hello. As promised, consider it closed at breakeven.
@omgsidewalks Well then, what's the point of developing it if it doesn't bring in a profit? Would you want to do something that just breaks even, or if the government is doing it, would you want to pay half your salary in taxes?
@BellaBaddie__ There was just a time—maybe it's still like that or maybe not, I don't know—when housing prices were growing very quickly. Because of that, it was a great asset that made money or at least protected you from inflation.
@Midnight_Sweaty It's all an economic cycle. I'm sure we aren't at the highs yet and we still haven't gone through a global economic downturn, but after that, life will be like it was for our parents.
Sorry if this makes you look foolish, but working harder doesn't mean making more money. Big money is made only through acquired or innate creativity and the ability to take smart risks. I would even call it a talent, just like in other creative professions. To earn more, you need to think like the minority. It's not always about deceiving someone, but often it is, because that's natural selection (the strong will always eat the weak) and there's no escaping it. So stop whining and go develop yourselves!
@DavidWolfe In my subjective opinion, this is due to the breakthrough in artificial intelligence technology and its development, which ultimately results in a need for greater computing power.