Video Summary - 90% Win Rate IFVG Model (Full Breakdown)

Finance-focused summary (IFVG / “IFG” market-structure trading model)

The speaker presents a discretionary trading framework claimed to achieve a ~90% win rate “over the entire year so far.” The approach targets IFG/IFVG (inversion fair value gap / inversion FVG) setups, supported by concepts such as liquidity (A+ draw), HTF narrative, and multiple confluences (e.g., AMD accumulation/manipulation/distribution, PO3 timing, optional SMT/CISD).

Key instruments / tickers mentioned

NQ (Nasdaq futures)
ES (S&P 500 futures)

No other assets/tickers are explicitly named.

Framework / step-by-step criteria (as described)

1) Liquidity qualification (“A+ draw on liquidity”)

Target two timeframes’ liquidity:

LTF (low-timeframe) low-resistance liquidity pool leading up to…
HTF draw on liquidity (DOL)

Bullish concept:

Price edges/targets HTF DOL (bullish side),
then prints LTF “lower resistance away”,
then trades back aggressively to DOL.

Bearish concept:

Price edges/targets bearish HTF DOL,
then moves away on LTF,
then distributes back toward the draw.

Notes:

Accumulation directly under HTF DOL counts (doesn’t require a perfect slant/angle).
Both HTF and LTF should show strong draw and corresponding liquidity behavior.

2) HTF “value gap” requirement (Fair Value Gap / FVG)

Minimum requirement:

Need an HTF fair value gap of at least 15 minutes.

If no 15m+ HTF FVG exists:

Use “sponsored” lower timeframe FVG, preferably 5-minute (3-minute may be used in some scenarios).

“Sponsored” concept structure:

If the trade interacts with the HTF FVG, distribution timing follows HTF FVG interaction.
If HTF FVG is never interacted with:
- A continuation gap can qualify.
- The relevant “sponsored” 5m/3m gaps must lie on the first swing leg (swing low → swing high).

3) “True manipulation” confirmation (AMD-like + HTF correlation)

The speaker wants both NQ and ES to be in HTF distribution zones, specifically:

Both are “inside” HTF fair value gaps at/around the same distribution phase.

Correlation does not require exact identity:

They don’t need to share the exact same correlated gap.
They just need both to have places to distribute from (e.g., 15m gap for one, 1h gap for the other).

Optional enhancement: Double SMT

One SMT aligned with the HTF gap,
and an internal SMT aligned with LTF swing lows.
Intended meaning: proves ES is distributing toward its DOL, while NQ also distributes from its HTF FVG.

4) Low-timeframe AMD backbone (Accumulation → Manipulation → Distribution)

Accumulation

Sideways / “slow price action”
No aggressive wicks
Relatively equal highs and lows (range-like behavior)

Manipulation

Requires:

(a) a liquidity sweep of the accumulation range
(b) trading into a HTF FVG

Definition:

Manipulation = the first move outside the accumulation range (false break).

Distribution

Expect:

Speed toward HTF DOL
During distribution, FVGs form and other market-structure artifacts appear (speaker examples include: order blocks / breaker blocks / PD rate)

Identification logic:

The manipulation leg is identified first (false move),
then distribution is expected immediately after.

5) PO3 timing booster (“Price and Time”)

PO3 defined:

Occurs on every 15-minute or above high-timeframe candle.
The speaker calls out specific time steps such as 9:30, 9:45, 10:00, 10:15, etc.

Claimed behaviors of PO3:

May generate liquidity, or
if liquidity exists, may shift to manipulation, or
if manipulation exists, may shift to distribution.

Win-rate booster rule:

Use the same AMD framework, but ensure PO3 comes before manipulation.
This creates:
- accumulation time → manipulation → delivery/distribution toward HTF DOL.

Candle interpretation:

Trade as the open of the HTF candle.
The speaker expects the printed wick to represent the HTF candle’s “lowest point” (in the bullish example).

6) Entry trigger: IFVG / inversion fair value gap (close + displacement)

Entry trigger = IFVG (inversion fair value gap):

A fair value gap that gets disrespected and then closed back above (bullish logic; bearish is opposite).

Displacement requirement (important caution):

Must be based on candle closure, not just wick touches.
Avoid cases where a wick is printed at the same time as closure.

Bullish expectation:

Wick at bottom + “healthy” body.
Bearish is reversed.

Timing/intent filter:

If inversion takes too long, intent may be weak.
- Example: if a 1-minute gap takes ~7 minutes to close through, it suggests lack of intent and that the lower timeframe may be “beating” HTF (trade caution).

Relative strength warning:

If the LTF is beating HTF, the setup is “not a good sign.”

7) Execution: use highest-timeframe inversion on manipulation leg; scale down using new AMD legs

Take the highest-timeframe IFVG inversion available on the current manipulation leg.
If scaling down:
- A “new internal AMD model” may allow a lower timeframe inversion (e.g., 30-second vs 2-minute, conceptually similar).

Benefit claimed:

Scaling down improves entry price, increases RR, and is described as “almost guaranteeing” ~1:1 each trade (speaker claim).

8) Optional confluences: SMT / CISD

SMT (correlation / crack-and-correlation)

Example idea: one asset takes out a low while the other doesn’t.
SMT must occur inside the expected distribution zone, not randomly.

CISD

Treated as additional confirmation of intent.
Tied to being in the same distribution context.

9) Market maker “narratives” (where the trade sits in the model)

The speaker frames three potential scenarios based on HTF vs LTF behavior:

LTF reversal inside HTF continuation
- Best risk-to-reward and “highest frequency.”
LTF continuation inside HTF continuation
- Higher win rate but lower frequency
- Speaker suggests increasing risk when this appears.
LTF reversal inside HTF rebalance
- Requires an unfilled gap on the execution timeframe (for the agreed liquidity magnet).
- Narrative: price returns to internal liquidity; may either expand higher or fully reverse toward the opposite side.

Examples discussed (no explicit prices, but concrete timeframe mechanics)

Example 1 (market maker buy model)

HTF: DOL = all-time highs with low-resistance leading into them.
HTF: rejection wicks at lows; bullish closes; HTF FVGs respected/disrespected appropriately.
LTF: identifies accumulation, then key open around 10:00 a.m.
Manipulation:
- At 10:00, price “trades lower into” the HTF/FVG manipulation point.
- Liquidity generated first, then manipulation.
Entry trigger:
- A 1-minute FVG that gets inversed and displaced above is used for entry.
Corroboration:
- Mentions true manipulation via correlation—NQ and ES both interact with the same/related HTF FVG.
PO3 behavior:
- Mentions 10:00 and 10:15 as times where manipulation/SMT appears and then displacement lower follows.

Example 2 (HTF rebalance + LTF reversal)

HTF (1 hour): disrespect bullish vs respect bearish gaps.
Unfilled liquidity:
- Requires an unfilled 1-hour gap at highs.
- On LTF:
  - A 5-minute unfilled gap acts as the return target.
Entry scaling:
- No usable 1-minute gap; scales down to find fractal liquidity.
- Uses 15-second gap existence and related lower-resistance path.
Displacement quality:
- Emphasizes clean displacement that runs through the entry gap “as if it never existed,” rather than setups with aggressive wicks.

Explicit recommendations / cautions

Must have displacement on IFVG inversions; avoid wick-only “respect.”
Watch inversion time (e.g., 1m gap taking ~7 minutes implies weak intent).
If LTF is beating HTF, it’s a caution sign (possible wrong side).
Optional confirmations (SMT/CISD) should be placed in the correct distribution area, not randomly.
HTF narrative must align: the setup’s “why” depends on whether you’re in reversal/continuation/rebalance regimes.

Disclosures / disclaimers

The subtitles do not include a formal “not financial advice” disclaimer.

Presenters / sources

Presenter/source: The speaker(s) in the subtitles (no name provided in the transcript).

90% Win Rate IFVG Model (Full Breakdown)

Key takeaways