ICT, SMC and “market structure” are mostly just new terminology for old concepts.

Hey everyone,

I think some people mix up three completely different things:

• Concept.
• Actual trading edge.
• Marketing machine.

Most of the so-called ICT, SMC and “market structure” stuff boiils down to liquidity, supply and demand zones, breaks of structure, imbalances, stop hunts, etc. None of that is new. It’s basically rebranded Wyckoff, auction theory, support/resistance, microstructure ideas.

If somethng is purely visual, discretionary, depends on “this one looks clean,” and can’t be clearly coded and tested, it’s extremely hard to prove statistically that there’s real edge there. I’m not saying nobody makes money with it. Some people probably do. But most retail traders consuming ICT/SMC content aren’t running large sample backtests. They’re pattern-matching in hindsight. That’s a big difference. Anytime you have something that is hard to quantify and falsify, can always be reinterpreted after the fact (“you marked it wrong”), promises insider knowledge – then you’ve basically built the perfect course-selling machine.

That doesn’t automatically mean it’s all fake, but it creates a business model with very little accountability.

At the end of the day, the market doesnt care what you call it – ICT, SMC, mean reversion, momentum, moon cycles – it doesn’t matter. If you can define clear rules, show large-sample backtests, solid OOS, and verified live results, I’m all in. If not, it’s just a narrative, daydreaming.