Jay Froneman

▶

▶ 42K ❤ 0 💬 0

“RSI makes you BROKE. Order flow makes you a MILLIONAIRE.” Sounds convincing… until you ask one question. Where's the evidence? You can put two traders next to each other, give them the exact same strategy and rules, and still end up with completely different results. One follows the process. The other constantly changes entries, second-guesses signals and breaks their own rules. Same strategy. Different performance. Now take a consistently profitable RSI trader and compare them with an unprofitable order-flow trader. Which one is using the “millionaire strategy”? That's the problem with ranking trading strategies like this. RSI, MACD, Wyckoff, volume profile and order flow can all be useful. But none of them guarantees profitability. What matters is whether you have a demonstrated edge, positive expectancy, consistent execution and proper risk management. Now here's the interesting part. He tells you which strategies make you broke. Then which ones make you rich. And at the end? An invitation to his free livestreams. There's absolutely nothing wrong with promoting your content. But let's not confuse marketing with evidence. A good marketing strategy isn't necessarily a profitable trading strategy. Stop chasing the strategy someone calls profitable. Start proving whether yours actually is. What's your primary trading strategy, and have you actually tested its long-term performance?

▶

▶ 283.3K ❤ 0 💬 0

He lost $1,800 in THREE seconds… and the comments think he made a mistake. But what if he actually made the RIGHT decision? He entered short, got stopped out, and then watched price move in the direction he originally anticipated. Naturally, the comments were full of advice. “He should've held.” “He shouldn't have used a stop-loss.” Funny how easy trading becomes when you already know what the next candle did. But here's what most retail traders misunderstand. A losing trade isn't necessarily a bad trade. And a winning trade isn't necessarily a good one. If this trader followed a properly tested strategy, respected his predetermined risk, and executed according to his rules, the trade could've been perfectly valid. Even though he lost $1,800. That's because professional trading isn't about being right on every individual trade. It's about executing a process with positive expectancy over a large sample of trades. And here's something worth remembering. The next time you evaluate a trade, ignore what happened AFTER the entry. Ask yourself what information was available BEFORE the decision was made. Did the setup meet the rules? Was the risk predefined? Was the process followed? Because if you need to see the outcome before deciding whether a trade was good… You're not evaluating the decision. You're evaluating the result. He hasn't necessarily shown you a bad trade. He's shown you a losing trade. And those are NOT the same thing. What's worse: taking a loss while following your rules, or making money by breaking them?

▶

▶ 10.6K ❤ 218 💬 18

The AI bubble could BURST… even if AI changes the world. And that’s what most investors are overlooking. Nvidia and Microsoft agreed to invest up to $15 billion in Anthropic. Anthropic, meanwhile, committed to spending $30 billion on Microsoft’s cloud infrastructure. See what’s happening? Capital flows into AI companies. Those companies spend billions on computing infrastructure, generating revenue for the technology providers. Now, does that mean the demand is fake? Absolutely not. But here’s the question nobody should be ignoring. Who’s ultimately paying for all this infrastructure, and will the economic returns justify the investment? Because revenue growth and sustainable profitability are two very different things. If customer demand fails to keep pace with infrastructure spending, the consequences could extend well beyond the technology sector. And we’ve seen something similar before. The internet wasn’t a failed technology. It transformed the world. Yet the dot-com bubble still destroyed enormous amounts of investor wealth. That’s the distinction. You can be absolutely right about the future of a technology and still be completely wrong about its valuation. The real question isn’t whether AI is the future. It’s whether investors are paying too much for that future TODAY. Do you think the AI boom is supported by sustainable demand, or are valuations getting ahead of reality?