You already know how to do this
If you play poker, you already have the operating system for trading: decisions under uncertainty, graded on process not outcome. Here is the same skill, translated into candlesticks — with your own numbers as the worked examples.
The mapping
| Concept | In poker | In trading |
|---|---|---|
| Decision value | play +EV hands, fold −EV ones | take +expectancy setups, skip −expectancy ones ↳ your luck-adjusted edge was −$74.69/trade — negative |
| Skill vs variance | one hand is noise; skill shows over ~1,500+ hands | one trade is noise; edge shows over a large sample ↳ raw swing ±$168.39/trade → luck-corrected ±$67.41 (6.2× tighter) |
| Bankroll / ruin | never risk the roll; cap risk per session | position sizing & the drawdown floor ↳ $94k static floor · risk ≤ $150/trade (buffer/10) |
| Tilt | emotional play after a downswing bleeds EV | revenge-trading after losses ↳ revenge cost you −$3,864.28 across the month |
| Range & equity | hand strength × board texture = how hard to play | setup quality → S/A/B/C/D tier (below) ↳ structure × confluence × R:R × robustness |
| Hand review | step the hand street-by-street, grade the line | step the trade bar-by-bar, grade the decision ↳ the candlestick replayer in Analyze |
| Solver / GTO | a reference for the unexploitable line | a systematic edge, validated out-of-sample ↳ walk-forward, judged on the worst fold |
Setup tiering · the ex-ante grade
Analyze grades a trade after the fact (was the decision +EV?). This grades a setup beforeyou take it — a hand's strength on the current board. Only S/A tiers are worth risking money on.
Structure alignment
Independent confluence
reward : risk — 2.0:1
Robustness (invalidation)
A
score 2.53 = 1.15 × 1.1 × 2.0 × 1
poker read: strong hand, clear line — standard raise
Multiplicative on purpose: one bad factor (counter-trend, stop in a liq cluster) collapses the score — a premium hand on a soaked board is still a fold. Only S/A tiers clear the bar to risk money.