ES / NQ — SMC/ICT Day Trader — December 31, 2025
December 31, 2025
34:33
SMC/ICT Day Trader
Bearish SMT divergence setup
2 rules followed. 4 unable to verify.
Strong rule adherence and thesis discipline. Execution quality scored lower because trades were executed off-screen — the recording shows planning only, not actual order management.
When I execute a trade via phone or separate platform, I will verbally note the timestamp or have that platform visible in recording.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
For the next 3 sessions, ensure the execution platform (broker, phone app) is visible in the screen recording, or note timestamps verbally during the session. This allows the AI to evaluate actual trade management, not just planning quality.
Session Preparation — Levels Marked
Immediately drew horizontal ray at 4137 and began establishing key zones. This aligns with the first observable rule about marking levels before any entry.
Zone Identification
Drew rectangle zone between 4130-4140, establishing the consolidation range being watched for a potential breakdown.
First Position Plan
First short position marker placed at 4145 with stop at 4155 and target at 4120 — clean 2.5:1 R:R structure.
Lower Timeframe Confirmation
Switched to 15m then 5m for precision — consistent with looking for market structure shift into the level.
Returned to Higher Timeframe
After lower TF analysis, zoomed back out to hourly to reassess context. Good practice to avoid getting lost in noise.
SMT Divergence Check
Switched to NQ to compare relative strength — directly aligned with stated thesis about ES weakness vs NQ.
NQ Level Mapping
Marked equivalent zones on NQ (15100-15200) to monitor for divergence signals. Systematic cross-instrument analysis.
NQ Position Planning
Placed short position markers on NQ, suggesting both instruments were being considered for the thesis execution.
Session End State
Final observation shows ES chart with comprehensive annotations — multiple horizontal lines, zones, and position planning tools in place.
Horizontal ray drawn at 4137.00 at 00:09, rectangle zone between 4130-4140 at 00:43, both before any position planning began.
"Mark previous day high/low and session liquidity pools before any position planning."
No order execution visible on screen. Post-session notes mention entering after SMT divergence confirmed, but the sweep timing cannot be verified from the recording.
"Wait for liquidity sweep before entry."
Recording timestamps are session-relative (00:00-32:15), not market time. No trades visible on screen to verify timing.
"Entry only during kill zones (9:30-11:00 or 14:00-15:00)."
Pre-session notes state "No major news today" — no calendar check visible but trader confirmed clean calendar.
"No trading on FOMC, NFP, or CPI days."
No trades visible in extraction. Post-session suggests at least one trade with partials taken.
"Maximum 2 trades per kill zone."
No losses visible in session data. Rule not applicable to this session.
"5-minute cool-down after any loss."
Six short position planning markers placed on ES at progressively lower prices (4145 → 4142 → 4140 → 4138 → 4135 → 4132). Spacing ranged from 1:28 to 5:35 between adjustments. This sequence is sometimes associated with methodical setup tracking as price develops, though can also indicate difficulty committing to an entry level.
REFLECTIVE QUESTION
You mentioned waiting patiently for the divergence to confirm — were these adjustments you tracking the optimal entry as the setup developed, or did you find yourself second-guessing the levels as price moved?
Two instances of systematic timeframe reduction (1h → 15m → 5m) on both ES and NQ before returning to hourly for position planning. Total of 6 timeframe changes across 32 minutes. This is consistent with standard multi-timeframe analysis for precision entry timing. Activity rate of 0.78 events/minute suggests methodical approach rather than uncertainty.
REFLECTIVE QUESTION
The drill-down pattern looks systematic — was this your normal process for confirming the FVG/OB on lower timeframes before entry?
SESSION THESIS
Looking for bearish SMT divergence today. ES showing relative weakness compared to NQ at the highs. Planning to short if we get a clean divergence signal after the opening range establishes. Key levels: ES 5630-5635 resistance, NQ 19800 resistance. Will wait for price to sweep these levels and show rejection before entering.
All 8 position planning markers were shorts across both ES and NQ. 5 symbol switches to actively compare both instruments and monitor the divergence relationship. Directional conviction remained consistent throughout. The stated thesis was bearish SMT divergence with ES weak vs NQ, planning to short after sweep and rejection — the session execution was fully aligned.
This session showed solid preparation and thesis discipline — you marked levels immediately, maintained short conviction throughout, and systematically analyzed both ES and NQ for your divergence setup. The 13 drawing tool uses across 32 minutes reflect methodical planning rather than overactivity.
However, there is a disconnect: you mentioned taking partials at 1:1 and exiting a runner early, but the screen recording shows zero order executions or P&L checks. This means trades were likely executed via phone or another platform, which is fine, but it means crucial data is missing to evaluate actual trade management.
What can be said is that planning quality was strong — every position marker showed 3:1 to 4:1 R:R, and you stayed directionally aligned with your stated thesis. For next session, if executing elsewhere, consider having that platform visible or noting the timestamps so the analysis can connect the dots.