Aspen Analytics
A veteran FX trader named Brent Donnelly once described the challenge of trading in a single sentence: “Every trader is a steaming hot bowl of bias stew and must maintain self-awareness and lucidity behind the screens as the trading day oscillates between boredom and terror.”
I’ve been trading for twenty-five years and I haven’t found a more accurate description of what actually happens inside the practice. Not what it looks like from the outside – the screens, the data, the apparent precision of it all – but what it feels like from inside a live position when conditions are moving against you and every tick is an invitation to reconsider everything you thought you knew twenty minutes ago.
The bias stew is always on. The question is whether you’ve built anything underneath the trading that keeps it from making every decision for you.
Most traders haven’t. And the specific place this shows up – where the bias stew does its most reliable damage – is in how traders identify the levels that matter.
Ask a trader to mark support and resistance on a chart and watch what happens. They look at the chart. They find areas where price bounced. They draw trend lines, note moving averages, identify patterns that look familiar. The process feels rigorous because it involves a chart and some deliberation. But what it’s actually producing is a private interpretation – levels that exist in that trader’s analysis, on that trader’s chosen timeframe, filtered through whatever bias the stew was running that morning.
Here’s the problem that most trading education never addresses directly: a level only matters if enough participants are watching the same level. The trend line you drew, the moving average you’re following, the chart pattern you identified – these are yours. The market has no obligation to respect them because the market doesn’t know they exist. You are, in a real sense, standing in the middle of the woods and screaming. If nobody’s around, nobody hears you. And if nobody hears you, nothing happens.
This is the structural problem with subjective analysis. It operates in isolation. The analysis may be internally consistent, technically competent, even occasionally correct – but its correctness is incidental rather than load-bearing, because the level wasn’t one the market was watching in the first place.
Objective analysis works differently – not just in degree but in kind. A price level where the majority of participants have historically concentrated their activity isn’t a level you identified. It’s a level the market identified, repeatedly, over time. Institutions know it. Algorithms are calibrated around it. Other serious practitioners are watching it. When price approaches that level, you’re not standing in the woods. You’re standing in the arena where the actual contest is happening – where buyers and sellers with real capital will engage, where there will be a resolution, where what happens next actually means something.
That’s the minimum requirement for a level worth trading. Not that it looks significant. That it is significant – to enough participants with enough capital that the market will actually do something when price gets there.
The framework that has underpinned my own trading for years starts from exactly that premise. Rather than identifying levels that look significant, it measures where market participants have historically concentrated their activity – where trades have occurred with the greatest frequency across specified lookback periods. That’s not interpretation. That’s data. The level is where it is because that’s where the market said it was, repeatedly, over time.
Four distinct lookback periods, color-coded for clarity, each carrying a different weight. The shorter-term levels are real and worth knowing. The longer-term levels – the ones that represent the accumulated activity of participants over months – carry a significance that no single-session read can replicate. When price approaches a level of that weight, the question isn’t whether to pay attention. The question is what everything else in the environment is saying about which way it resolves.
That question – asked against an objective structural reference rather than an interpreted one – is what separates a decision from a guess.
Before your next trade, ask yourself one question: do you know where the market has previously made decisions at this level, measured by where actual participants have concentrated their activity over time? Not where it looks like support. Not where price bounced on the chart in front of you. Where the market’s own history says participants have repeatedly engaged.
If you can answer that question with data rather than interpretation, you’re trading with a reference frame. You’re in the arena. If you can’t, you’re operating in a vacuum – which is where the bias stew does its best work, unchecked, mistaking its own temperature for information.
The chart is telling you something. The question is whether what you’re reading is what it’s actually saying.
Reflections from a long career in trading.
Aspen Trading Group is a registered Commodity Trading Advisor (NFA #0576114). Nothing published here constitutes trading advice.
Aspen Analytics offers self-directed subscription products including Aspen Swing Trading, S/R Levels, and the free SPY Framework research note. Advisors and family offices: see SPY Tactical.
