Key takeaways
In ICT Mentorship 2023 \ September 18, 2023 NQ Market Review, a seven-minute session recap, ICT walks through one difficult Nasdaq session on a live account.
Read the full summary
In ICT Mentorship 2023 \ September 18, 2023 NQ Market Review, a seven-minute session recap, ICT walks through one difficult Nasdaq session on a live account. He opens with a reported result of “37.40 before commissions” (0:08), then describes an initial short that never reached his target, a manual exit before his resting stop filled, and a reversal that reused the former stop level as a long entry (3:00). He reports a 1,700 loss mitigated by that reversal and refers to a 3,760-looking day, while also saying he had earlier described something in the low thousands (3:43). He then reviews a later bearish sequence he ties to his 2022 model, with a stated defensive reference at 15,387.50 (5:29), and closes warning that the session was choppy and that forcing trades or using maximum leverage ahead of a Wednesday announcement would be gambling (7:04). The caption track mangles several of his terms and its numbers cannot be verified; the reported figures are his own review of his own account, not independently confirmed results.
How we researched this article
BestProps used document-based research from primary firm sources, checked September 24, 2026. The complete source list, scope, limitations, and commercial-state record appear near the end of this article.
This article covers a short session recap, so it stays short. It summarises what ICT said about one day’s trading; it does not test his model, and nothing here is a recommendation to trade index futures.
The day’s framing: a two-sided range and an unsure week
ICT opens with the result slide and immediately narrows the scope: he says he worked only Nasdaq that day, while noting the S&P also spent the session consolidating, taking both sides of its range and returning to the middle (0:20, 0:29).
He then frames the week rather than the day. At 1:50 he points to a scheduled announcement on the Wednesday afternoon and says the market would likely be fickle and less symmetrical beforehand, because the S&P and Nasdaq usually move together and he was not seeing that (2:00). That is his contemporaneous read of conditions, not a demonstrated relationship between event risk and trade quality.
He also notes the setting is his own account, saying at 0:11 that the screen shown is a live account. A recording of a live account is still only his own report of it; no statement, fill history or commission record appears in the recording.
The initial short, the manual exit and the reversal
ICT says he started the day wanting to be short. From 2:26 he describes waiting for price to trade up into a small gap and selling there, and he names the levels he was watching – he says he tweeted interest in 15,312 and 15,300 (2:43). Price moved in his favour briefly and then went the other way without reaching those levels.
What happened next is the part he explains in most detail. He says the short’s stop-loss order was not hit, but the move against him was more aggressive than he wanted, so at 3:02 he closed the position manually and used that same stop level as his long entry. His stated condition for doing this is narrow: only when he knows he is offside and judges that he will either be run over or that the opposing move will be much more pronounced (3:21). He reports a 1,700 loss that the reversal immediately mitigated (3:34).
The reported result needs care. At 3:43 he says it looked like a 3,760 winning day, and then at 3:50 recalls having shared something in the low thousands earlier in the day, saying he would go and check the screenshot he posted. The opening figure he quotes is “37.40 before commissions” (0:08), which would be a very small amount if read literally as dollars and cents. The captions are not reliable enough to settle which figures are profits, which are losses and what units they are in, so this article reports the numbers as he said them and draws no conclusion from them.
The later bearish sequence he ties to his 2022 model
From 4:00 ICT moves to an earlier sequence he says he flagged live, including a tweet about a fair value gap at what the captions render as the 939 level (4:34). He then names the structure he was reading as his 2022 model – the trading model he says he taught on the channel in 2022 (4:49):
- Price takes buy side liquidity (4:55).
- A shift in market structure follows at relative equal highs (4:23).
- Price trades back up into a fair value gap, which he says gave three opportunities to get short (4:57).
- The market breaks aggressively lower, turns back up into a bearish order block, then moves lower again (5:00).
- He takes a partial exit after price moves below a prior low, and had a lower objective he never got to act on (5:10).
He says he had wanted to take another partial just below relative equal lows, but price hit that area and immediately ran higher before he could (5:19). That is a stated missed exit, and the article reports it as one.
The 15,387.50 reference and his reading of it
The session’s most specific level comes near the end. At 5:29 ICT calls 15,387.50 his last line of defence and describes it as the midpoint – in his term, consequent encroachment – of an imbalance framed by one candle’s low and another candle’s high. He then points to the low coming in exactly at that level to the tick and calls it algorithmic rather than contrived (5:47), adding that it also lines up as the halfway point between another pair of candles, which he reads as confluence (6:06).
Two things are worth separating here. One level landing to the tick is a real observation on his screen, and he is right that it is specific. The claim that this proves algorithmic delivery is his causal interpretation, not something a transcript can establish, and a single instance does not distinguish an algorithm’s price delivery from coincidence or from his own choice of which candles to measure. The number itself is also one the captions spell out in words rather than digits, so it is reported here as spoken.
He adds that he was not in the market or even watching when price later ran up through relative equal highs into a 30-minute fair value gap, worked around that level’s consequent encroachment, and returned to 15,387.50 before the afternoon (6:17, 6:33).
His closing caution
The review ends with a warning rather than a setup. At 6:44 he calls the recent action consolidation in a market without an advantage worth chasing overnight, repeats his instruction to keep powder dry, and at 7:04 says that forcing things before the Wednesday rate announcement is gambling and that maximum leverage should not be used. He expects cleaner, more symmetrical conditions on Thursday and Friday (7:11) – a forward expectation he states before the event, not a result.
The transferable part of the recap is the process, not the money: he treated a thesis as falsified by price behaviour rather than waiting for a resting order to decide for him, and he explicitly narrowed the reversal to a condition he could name. He does not present it as a rule to copy, and neither does this article.
What this review does not establish
The recording is a brief verbal recap with no supporting evidence shown in text form. It contains no statement, fill history, commission detail or account record, and the reported figures are spoken over his own screen. The result he opens with – “37.40 before commissions” – does not reconcile cleanly with the 3,760-looking day he mentions later, and he himself says he would go back and check the screenshot he posted. There is no win rate, no sample size, no backtest and no drawdown figure anywhere in the recording.
The automated captions are unusually rough on this clip, which is why this article quotes several terms as they were rendered rather than cleaning them up. He also digresses about a puppy snoring in the room during the recording (0:36) and about a family visit affecting his timing (1:41); neither affects the trading description and neither is treated here as substantive.
The 15,387.50 confluence argument, the fair value gap entry sequence and the reversal technique all depend on charts and order tickets this article cannot see. What can be checked is that he said these things, on this date, about this session – which is what the timestamp links above record.
Watch the original recording
Watch the original recording on YouTube
The video cannot be played inside another website. When its embedded player was loaded and clicked from a BestProps page on 15 September 2026, the player itself reported “Video unavailable — Playback on other websites has been disabled by the video owner.” and stayed on a “Watch on YouTube” prompt with no playback progress at all; the public watch page plays normally. That is why no embed is left here.
Watch ICT Mentorship 2023 \ September 18, 2023 NQ Market Review on YouTube ↗
The recording runs about seven minutes and is the only primary source used for this article. The channel is The Inner Circle Trader on YouTube.
Resources
These are the sources checked for this article. The CFTC and Investor.gov pages are general regulator and investor-education material – on leveraged foreign-exchange fraud, on trading systems sold online, and on what leverage is. They are not assessments of ICT or of anything said in the recording, and none of them verifies the figures he reports here. Third-party copies, notes and indicator bundles derived from his material circulate outside his own distribution and were not tested here.
- [1] ICT Mentorship 2023 \ September 18, 2023 NQ Market Review – The Inner Circle Trader (primary source; watch page read 15 September 2026, 7M18S)
- [2] CFTC Learn & Protect – Forex Frauds (read 15 September 2026)
- [3] CFTC – Fraud Advisory: Commodity Trading Systems Sold on the Internet (read 15 September 2026)
- [4] Investor.gov – Glossary: Leverage (read 15 September 2026)
This is independent educational commentary on one seven-minute session recap. It is not official ICT material, it is not a tested trading system, and it is not investment advice. The dollar figures quoted are the speaker’s own spoken review of his own account and are not verified here. Index futures trading with leverage involves substantial risk and is not suitable for everyone.
