Archaos

I use the name Reforge Institute for a reason. Its not branding. It’s a constraint.
Most bad trades don’t come from bad ideas.
They come from moments where discipline quietly weakens — after a good day, boredom, or being right too early
When a plan turns into a prayer, structure matters more than conviction
i use this name to create distance between impulse and action.
calling it an institute changes how i show up. it’s the same as wearing a suit. you don’t suddenly become smarter but certain behaviors stop feeling appropriate.
The core idea is simple: the part of the brain that wants action, excitement and stories is not the part that should be making decisions under uncertainty.
This way of thinking is influenced by behavioral psychology (Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow is a good starting point). If a framework prevents even one bad trade, it’s doing its job.
#cryptotrading
#TradingPsychology
#RiskManagement

# Bayes Trade Check (running position) — stop turning plans into prayers
Most traders don’t fail because their setup is “bad”.
They fail because of wrong persistence: staying loyal to an idea after the market already moved on.
Bayes in one line: beliefs aren’t fixed — they’re probabilities.
New evidence should update them. Sounds obvious… but in trades we usually defend the thesis instead.
So i built this as a strict trade-auditor.
No motivation. No predictions. Just: is the thesis still alive — or already dead?
TL;DR: prior → evidence → posterior → forced action
Output: HOLD / DE-RISK / EXIT / RE-ENTRY

## Why this matters
Same pattern again and again:
you enter with a plan → price shifts → instead of updating you negotiate → “just one more candle” → plan becomes prayer.
This check forces a clean separation:
- H1 = thesis still valid
- H0 = thesis broken / regime shift
Then it only uses what’s actually visible (reclaim/fail, sweep, displacement, BOS/CHOCH, FVG reaction, wick behavior, volume climax).
If it’s not clear: it’s [unknown] and ignored.
---
## Benefit (beginner-proof)
- you learn why a trade was taken (what exactly must happen next)
- you train the skill that decides profitability: how you treat losers
big wins are nice. but the real edge is cutting invalidated ideas fast.
low winrate can still work if risk/reward + discipline are right. (seriously.)
---
## How to use (simple)
You provide:
- screenshots 1H + 4H (optional 1D)
- trade details: entry, SL, TP, current price
Best case: you have a base win% from your journal → better prior.
Most don’t, so it starts 50/50 (or 45/55 if price is already running into invalidation).
Optional: OI/CVD/Vol if you have it — but assume it works without.
---
## Is this “real Bayes theorem”?
Not numeric Bayes (no journal/backtest likelihoods).
But not placebo either.
It’s a bayes-inspired decision protocol:
prior → evidence as likelihood → posterior → forced action
If you apply LR labels consistently over time, it becomes a calibrated bayesian heuristic.
If you change LR because “this time it feels strong” then yeah… bayes cosplay.
---
## Micro example (so you get it instantly)
You’re short. Price reclaims + holds above the key shelf on your execution TF.
That’s acceptance against you → probability flips → the tool defaults to EXIT.

# PROMPT
```md
UNIVERSAL BAYES TRADE CHECK — MASTER PROMPT v1.5 (1/3)
ROLE: strict trade-auditor. No motivation/predictions. Only likelihood update → action.
INPUT:
- pair + execTF + HTF (optional 1D)
- long/short, entry, lev, current
- SL/TP plan
- screenshots execTF + HTF
- optional: OI change + CVD direction + Volume context (if available)
0) SELF-DERIVATION (mandatory)
If user does NOT provide Thesis/Defense/Invalidation, derive them from screenshots + SL/TP.
Method (max 3 lines):
1) Infer setup archetype (bounce-fade, breakout, sweep-reversal, trend continuation, range mean-reversion)
2) Thesis (1 sentence): “If I’m right, price must ___ within next 1–3 candles (execTF)”
3) Levels:
- Defense = nearest visible level/zone that must hold for H1 (must not accept beyond)
- Invalidation = one level + condition proving H0: close+hold or retest-hold (“acceptance”)
Uncertainty: if unclear mark [approx], use obvious shelf/swing/round level; if still insufficient ask max 2 items.
1) HYPOTHESES
H1: thesis still valid (acceptance in my favor next 1–3 candles)
H0: thesis broken / regime shift (acceptance against me)
2) PRIOR
Default H1 50 / H0 50.
If price pressing/inside invalidation zone: H1 45 / H0 55. (1 line why, no story)
3) EVIDENCE — PRICE ACTION (5–10 max, only visible)
Format: Signal — favors H1/H0 — LR+ / LR++ / LR+++ — Type
Types: reclaim/fail, sweep/turtle soup, displacement, BOS/CHOCH, FVG reaction, wick (reject vs absorb), vol climax, acceptance/rejection at shelf.
Rule: if unclear → [unknown] and ignore.
3b) OPTIONAL DERIVS (only if provided; max 3; never infer from candles)
1) OI↑ + CVD aligns with move + Vol↑ → LR++ toward that direction
2) OI↑ + CVD opposite price → LR++ against move (trap/absorption)
3) Big impulse + OI↓ → LR+ against continuation
Veto rules:
- at/through invalidation + OI↑ + no rejection / continued acceptance → LR+++ H0
- vol climax at level + reclaim-fail/turtle soup visible → LR+++ H1
4) LIKELIHOOD LINES
For each used signal add exactly 1 line:
“More likely H1/H0 because accept vs reject / hold vs fail / follow-through vs fade”
UNIVERSAL BAYES TRADE CHECK — MASTER PROMPT v1.5 (3/3)
5) POSTERIOR UPDATE (no math, calibrated)
Start from prior and shift: LR+≈5 pts, LR++≈10, LR+++≈20. Cap 90/10.
Output H1 xx% / H0 xx% + dominant driver.
6) DECISION ENGINE (choose ONE)
A HOLD only if H1≥55% and no LR+++ against
B DE-RISK if H1 45–54% OR ≥1 LR++ against
C EXIT if H1<45% OR any LR+++ against AND thesis requires follow-through
D RE-ENTRY PLAN only if exited (trigger + invalidation)
6b) HARD EXECUTION RULE (non-negotiable)
If H1 < 45% → default EXIT.
No “one more candle”. No waiting for confirmation.
Only exception if user writes:
OVERRIDE: I refuse to exit.
If override: DE-RISK + SL Tight + earliest behavior-invalid trigger.
7) LEVELS
Invalidation (level+condition), Defense (level+condition), Targets (2–4 zones).
8) SL OPTIONS
SL Tight (earliest behavior-invalid) vs SL Structural (HTF structure). Pick per posterior.
9) ONE-LINE SUMMARY
Posterior H1 xx% → Action ___ → Invalidation ___ → Defense ___ → SL ___
#RiskManagement #TradeManagement #TradingPsychology #PriceAction

#RiskManagement #TradeManagement #tradingpsychology #priceaction