methodology
No lens replaces the others. Atlas without statistics is narrative. Statistics without structure is noise without context. Positioning without the first two is just one more opinion. And all three without the fourth -- without knowing whether the trader is in a state to execute -- are a dead letter.
The market generates its own information in real time: where the Initial Balance forms, where price is accepted or rejected (Value Area), where volume concentrates (POC). This is not an indicator -- it is a way of reading the auction as it happens.
Every session, the platform calculates IB, Value Area and POC live and compares them against the historical behavior of the same instrument in the same context (day of the week, IB size, session). The question is never 'what does the indicator say' -- it is 'what is price doing with the information it already has'.
Before trading a pattern, you need to know whether that pattern really exists in the data -- not in your intuition. 16+ years of exchange-direct history (GLBX.MDP3), unadjusted, with the roll rule documented, feed more than 100 report types: gap fill, ORB, IB by size, seasonality, streaks, macro events.
The discipline is simple and almost always broken: every number is published with its n and its caveats. A 100% fill rate with n=12 is not the same as a 77% with n=628 -- and this platform never lets that difference get lost in the fine print.
The CFTC's weekly report (Commitments of Traders) shows how large speculators are positioned against commercials. At the extremes, that positioning becomes the market's own risk -- when everyone is already on the same side, who is left to push price further?
It is not an entry signal on its own. It is a filter: when the statistics and the structure point one way but positioning is at a historical extreme, that is the question to ask yourself before pulling the trigger.
The first three lenses read the market. This one reads the trader. A report can say a setup wins 77% of the time -- that number is useless if the person executing it is revenge trading after two losses in a row.
The Journal records each trade with its emotional state and whether or not you followed your predefined plan, and cross-tabulates that data exactly like any other report on this platform: with n, with caveats, no embellishment. The question it answers: in which state are you profitable, and in which are you losing before you even enter?
from theory to screen
Market Profile has a reputation for being hard to teach yourself -- months of books and courses that never turn into a clear action in front of the chart. This is exactly that: five steps, in order, with the exact page you use at each one.
Open What's in Play. Only setups with a true live condition AND a real historical report behind them appear -- if it is empty, there is no clear structural edge today.
open What's in Play →The Initial Balance is completed at 10:30 ET. Until then the Screener's bias says 'pending' on purpose -- it is not a bug, it is Atlas discipline: the information is generated by the market, you don't anticipate it.
see the live Screener →Price breaks the IB high or low -- that is a fact. Before trading it, find the specific report (IB break, gap fill, ORB) in Reports and look at the n and the caveats. A 91% with n=40 is not the same as a 91% with n=600.
see Reports →Run the setup in Backtest Lab with Monte Carlo (does the result depend on the order of the trades?) and, if you are going to evaluate a prop firm account, with that firm's real rules -- drawdown, daily limit, consistency.
open Backtest Lab →The Journal asks for your emotional state and whether you followed the plan on every entry. Over time this answers the question no market report can: in which state are you profitable, and in which are you losing before you even enter?
open Journal →The four lenses live in one place.
see the product →