Why does 'Rise' lead the breakout of a 1.5 hour range on the global market?
Assume someone is trading and showing you their trade log or P&L, and it looks “good” on paper.
Why does it still often feel inconsequential—like what they traded was passive to the actual outcome—almost as if the market would’ve done that anyway?
And why do so many traders emphasize the outcome after the fact (post-hoc), instead of demonstrating the decision process and causal link before and during the move? Showing the chain of events that explain the tape.
Their log can look great, but if it’s narrated after the move, you can tell they’re selling something different than what they’re touting.
They’re touting skill.
But what they’re actually selling is a highlight reel — a story stitched to an outcome.
When the only “proof” is the end result, and the trade is framed as inevitability (“it went up, I was long”), the position itself becomes passive.
There’s no demonstrated sequence and chain: no clear why here, why then, what invalidates, what would make them wrong, what they did while it was uncertain.
That’s how you can tell:
the product is outcomes, not process
the marketing is certainty, not decision quality
the evidence is post-hoc alignment, not pre-commitment under uncertainty
If they can’t show the moment of choice — the constraint, the timing, the risk boundary — then the “good P&L” isn’t a demonstration of edge.
It’s a demonstration that they know how to narrate a chart after it prints.