Open last month's records before buying. Create the criteria beforehand to compare after introduction

On the night I decided to add one tool, I printed last month’s records.

Three pages on A4. I should have written it all myself, but I could read only about half of it.

…Next month, will I compare this with it?

While holding the paper, I stood frozen for a moment.

The person to measure whether it got better was, in the first place, someone who can’t read it.

I will write exactly what I redid that night.

In terms of order, there were things to do before buying.

Good evening!

I’m Masashi ^^

What I cleared up this time first was to decide what to compare it with after introduction.

If you put it in without a comparison target, you’ll feel it’s working, and the month will end.

So I wrote three items on paper that I would definitely count next month.

Thirty minutes of work, but whether I did this or not changed how the following month looked.

I’ll start with the night when half of the three printed pages were unreadable。

✅ I colored the three printed pages with a fluorescent marker

To separate what I could read from what I couldn’t, I brought out a highlighter.

What I could color were only the lines that had numbers written on them.

The time of entry. The time of exit. The quantity at that time.

What I couldn’t color were the lines I had intended to write about the situation.

It felt good. It was a bit early. I pushed it today.

All of them should have made sense on the day I wrote them.

After a month, I couldn’t understand what it was about.

What was troublesome started here: unreadable lines can’t be compared.

Even if I write the same next month, I won’t see whether it got better or worse.

Two of the three pages were papers that couldn’t be used for judgment.

Honestly, I think I was quite lucky to notice this before putting in the tool.

If I had noticed after inserting it, I would have blamed the tool.

✅ Unreadable lines can’t be compared. A record that can’t be compared won’t be a material for next month。

What could be colored were only the lines with numbers. The lines I wrote about the situation would become unreadable in a month.

? It ends a month with the feeling that it’s working

Right after introducing something new, things usually look better.

This often has little to do with the tool’s performance.

Because during the week you introduced something new, you look at the screen more carefully than usual.

Results from a focused week are attributed to the tool.

I’ve done that many times in the past.

And around the third week, when my usual focus returns, the numbers return too.

What emerges then is the phrase that the market has changed.

What changed isn’t the market, but the amount of attention I pay.

If you can’t distinguish this, you’ll keep swapping tools.

What’s needed to distinguish is not performance comparison, but your own numbers before inserting it.

? In the week after adding something new, it’s not the tool but your own focus that rises。

The numbers return in the third week because attention has returned, not because the market changed.

? If you set standards after buying, you’ll tend to be lenient

Then what happens if you set standards after introduction?

Actually, you end up choosing items by recalling the cases when it went well.

I think I chose them fairly.

But as humans, the more convenient memories come to the front.

As a result, the standards align with items the tool excels at.

If you measure with those aligned standards, you’ll naturally get good points.

Even if you feel it was good after a month, that was a goodness created by the way you measured it.

So you need to establish standards before buying.

The you before paying hasn’t yet shown favoritism.

At this point you write it on paper and seal it as is.

? The you before paying hasn’t yet favored that tool。

The standards chosen after introduction lean toward what the tool does well. So you write them first and seal them.

? I decided on three things to count next month

These are the three I wrote on paper.

How many times I could write a one-line reason.

How many times I decided to skip it.

And how many times it exceeded the allowable amount I had decided.

I didn’t place profit amount first on purpose.

Because monthly profit is heavily influenced by the market’s mood.

If you measure a tool with numbers that are swayed by mood, judgments flip every month.

In that sense, the numbers on your side—how many times you wrote and how many you skipped—belong to you.

If your own numbers increase, that tool at least isn’t getting in your way.

Conversely, if the times you exceeded the allowable amount increase, treat that as a warning.

It means your convenience has made your hands lighter.

? Profit is swayed by the market mood. The counts you tally first are on your side。

Example: [Reasons written: 12 / Skipped: 9 / Exceeded: 0]

? How to use in the first week after introduction

I limited the things I would do in the week I inserted it to two.

First, don’t trust the display; write your own assessment first.

When you open the screen, leave a one-line note before looking at the tool’s display.

[Today I’m occupying the upper area and still moving] That much is enough.

Then look at the display and write beside it whether it was right or wrong.

Second, lower the quantity than usual.

With unfamiliar tools, using the usual quantity leads to consumption before you verify.

Spending a week like this shows how the tool and you diverge.

In my case, when I was upper, my assessment was too quick.

It wasn’t that the display came out later; I wasn’t patient enough.

If you don’t write your own one-line assessment first, you won’t understand this.

If you only look at the display, you’ll end up with impressions of hit or miss.

? Before looking at the display, write your own assessment in one line。

Example: [My assessment: Upper area, still moving / Display: Match]

?See details of the Golden Line Sniper AI

⚠ It’s better not to jump to conclusions within a week

I think this is where people fail the most.

Deciding whether it fits or not based on one week’s results.

I’ve had two tools I discarded after three days in the past.

In hindsight, those were not tool issues but market phase issues.

If you introduce something based on movements in a quiet week, it’s natural that nothing appears.

So, at a minimum, span two weeks with different natures of markets.

Both a highly active week and a barely moving week.

After looking at both, compare with the three numbers you wrote first.

If you still can’t judge, it’s okay to postpone by another month.

Rushing to conclusions and swapping out costs money and time.

⚠ I won’t decide fit or not until I wait through two weeks with different personalities。

Trying tools in a quiet week with movements expected is natural; nothing may come out.

? I looked at 9,192 charts and threw away most of them

When building the Golden Line Sniper AI, I looked at 9,192 real charts.

I don’t want to brag about the sheer number itself.

What’s truly important is that only a tiny number remained after selection.

Over 35 tested ideas, and less than one-third remained until the end.

Most of what didn’t remain looked strong only in specific situations.

On a single chart, it looked spot on.

But when you line up different times, it suddenly doesn’t hold.

Going through this made me realize how weak my verification was!

I had adopted what looked good on one chart up to then.

Like the records, you can’t decide adoption without comparing enough charts.

That’s why I kept 626 official verification reports and 496 raw data records.

I wanted people who are curious to verify for themselves.

? What looks good on one chart doesn’t hold when you vary the timing。

Actual numbers: 9,192 real charts in development; over 35 tested ideas; adoption rate below one-third

⭕ Some things cannot be guaranteed, and I’ll note this up front

To those who have read this far and are hopeful, I want to tell you this first.

This is not a tool that guarantees future profits.

In periods when it doesn’t align with the market, there are long periods with little growth.

Also, it doesn’t decide where you enter.

Its role is to line up candidates, and to keep the order of viewing the same every day.

The choice remains with you until the end.

If you don’t want to decide for yourself, honestly, this isn’t for you.

Also, it may not suit those who can’t preserve the records written today.

If you don’t create a comparable set of targets, you won’t be able to verify why you inserted it.

First, try with a practice account or a very small amount.

Verify before increasing. If you skip this order, you won’t know whether the cause is you or the tool.

⭕ The role is to present candidates; the final choice remains with you。

What cannot be done: deciding the exact entry point / guaranteeing future performance

? Summary: before buying, create next month’s yardstick

Of the three printed pages, only the lines with numbers could be read one month later.

If you insert a tool when the readable records are only unreadable, it ends up feeling effective but isn’t.

Therefore before buying, write down on paper the three items you will definitely count next month and seal it. The actual figures are [Reasons written: 12 / Skipped: 9 / Exceeded: 0].

Where you look isn’t profit amount but your own side’s numbers. It’s a place where the market’s mood won’t flip every month.

Decisions should be made after looking at both the weeks with heavy activity and those with little movement. If you decide in one week, you’ll often mistake the situation for the tool’s performance.

Tools are used to keep the viewing order the same every day. The choosing part remains with you and cannot guarantee future profits.

If you’re hesitating about adding something, try making one paper sheet in the thirty minutes before buying^^

?See details of the Golden Line Sniper AI

Thank you always for reading ^^