Bluesky posts: pre-session reviews according to AI

I’ve been having a lot of fun — and the occasional moment of pain — working with AI, and it’s been fascinating watching it evolve over the years into an incredibly capable assistant. Its coding skills are great for the boring boilerplate, but as an admin tool it’s superb.
I used a mix of Sonnet, Copilot and Claude Code to build an API that reviews my Bluesky posts and gives a full, independent assessment — essentially a “mark my homework” setup. I started the project last night on my iPad and finished it this morning on the PC, hence the mix of AI tools. I’m genuinely impressed by the output shown below. I haven’t tinkered with the wording at all; the only interventions were correcting the occasional abbreviation or factual detail — very few, and quickly fixed.
I can’t say I agree with every point it made, but it does show just how far AI has come. A few hours of back‑and‑forth and voilà.
All the posts are based on the reviews I do for our trading group. We constantly monitor and revise the price magnets/PRZs in real time within the group, whereas the Bluesky posts reflect the levels as they were at the time

Posts scanned: 1274
Images found: 1178
 
# Trading Content Analysis: Snormtrader (FOR-EXE.COM)
 
---
 
## 1. PRZs and Price Magnets
 
### US30 (Dow Jones) — Key Levels Called
 
| Level | Price | Source | Notes |
|-------|-------|---------|-------|
| ATH / 2026 Top | ~50,505 | Weekly chart | Confirmed ATH; reversal origin |
| 2026 Annual Open | ~48,947 | Weekly chart | Reference anchor |
| Strong PRZ / TZ1 | 46,647.9 | Weekly (61.8 Fib) | Labeled "TZ1***" — breached bearishly |
| 46K Round Number | ~46,000 | Multiple timeframes | Repeatedly cited as support/resistance pivot |
| Strong Resistance Zone | ~46,546–46,913 | H1/H4 charts | Red horizontal zone; major supply area |
| 50% Retracement | ~43,458.6 | Weekly chart | Cited as next major bear target |
| STRONG PRZ | 45,115.1 | Weekly (38.2 Fib) | Currently being tested at time of analysis |
| MTG Target | ~45,829.7 | H4 chart | Fib 61.8 confluence target |
| 45,311 Blue Line | 45,311.1 | H1/H4 charts | Recurrent key support line |
| Target 3 | 44,894.0 | H1 chart | Downside projection target |
| 44K Zone | ~44,000 | H1 chart | Yellow zone support cluster |
| H4 2 Support | ~43,958 | H1 chart | Within yellow support cluster |
| 2025 Annual Open | ~43,200 | Weekly chart | Structural anchor |
| 200% Extension | 39,870.8 | Weekly chart | Deep bear target |
| Me Gap Pro | Referenced in posts | Multiple | Gap projection target, cited repeatedly |
| Nov Demand Zone | Just above 45,311 | H4 | Structural demand from Nov 2025 |
 
### GER40 (DAX 40) — Key Levels Called
 
| Level | Price | Source | Notes |
|-------|-------|---------|-------|
| ATH | 25,520.7 | Weekly/Daily | Origin of bearish move |
| 38.2 Fib | 22,935–22,953 | D1/W1 | Broken; previously support |
| 50% Retracement | 22,142–22,160 | D1/W1 | Currently being tested; "50% of move up since April 2025" |
| WOWC Gap | ~22,000 area | D1 | Gap reference cited multiple times across sessions |
| 23K Round Number | ~23,000 | Multiple timeframes | Repeatedly cited as resistance |
| 22K Round Number | ~22,000 | Multiple timeframes | Key downside target; achieved |
| Target 3 | 21,400.4 | W1 chart | Bear target; not yet reached at analysis date |
| FVG (Fair Value Gap) | ~21,367 | W1 chart | Unfilled gap acting as magnet |
| 21K Zone | ~21,000 | D1/W1 | Yellow MTC target |
| MTC Target | ~21,000 | D1 chart | Measured target |
| 61.8 Fib | 21,349–21,367 | D1/W1 | Confluence with FVG |
| 70.7 Extension | 20,751 | D1 chart | Deep extension support |
| 19K Zone | ~19,000 | W1 chart | "Big bomb" deep bear target |
| H1 TZ1 UP | 22,718.4 | H1 chart | Upside bounce target |
| H1 TZ2 UP | 23,206.4 | H1 chart | Extended upside target |
| H1 TZ1 DN | 21,828.2 | H1 chart | Downside if bounce fails |
| OT-Tweet Demand Zone | Referenced | H1 posts | Informal label for reactive demand |
| SDZ (Supply/Demand Zone) | ~23,000–24,500 | W1 chart | Orange shaded area; previously demand, now broken |
| FE200 / 50% | ~19,800 area | Weekly/NASDAQ | Deep extension cited for NASDAQ |
 
### Cross-Reference — Chart Images vs. Post Text Alignment
 
The chart image analysis strongly corroborates the post text. Specific confirmations:
 
- **22K DAX target** — posts say "our 22k TP done" and charts show price at 22,158–22,167, confirming this level was reached
- **46K DOW support** — charts show price at 45,215–46,205 across timeframes; posts reference 46K repeatedly as the key battleground
- **45,115 STRONG PRZ** — weekly chart explicitly labels this as strong PRZ at 38.2 Fib; price sitting directly on it
- **50% DAX retracement at 22,142** — both daily and weekly charts mark this level; post text says "50% of move up since early April 2025"
- **WOWC Gap** references in posts match the gap structures visible on D1 charts across both instruments
- **OT geopolitical risk** references (Iran oil >$100) appear both as chart annotations and in post text — consistent framing throughout
- **Target 3 at 44,894 (DOW)** and **21,400 (DAX)** — both remain pending/not yet reached at the time of the latest charts
 
---
 
## 2. Target Zone (TZ) Hit Rate Analysis
 
*Note: Analysis based on all post text references and chart image data. TZ levels are identified from explicit TZ1/TZ2 mentions across timeframes in both post text and chart annotations. Given that chart image data covers specific snapshot dates (primarily Mar 27–30, 2026) and post text spans a longer period, classifications reflect the available evidence.*
 
| Timeframe | Zone | Called | Hit | Missed | Invalidated | Pending | Hit Rate |
|-----------|------|--------|-----|--------|-------------|---------|----------|
| M15 | TZ1 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 55% |
| M15 | TZ2 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 43% |
| H1 | TZ1 | 14 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 57% |
| H1 | TZ2 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50% |
| H4 | TZ1 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 56% |
| H4 | TZ2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 40% |
| D1 | TZ1 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 50% |
| D1 | TZ2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 33% |
 
**Important caveat:** These figures are derived from a corpus where follow-through data is incomplete — many calls are made intraday with no subsequent confirmation post, and the author frequently flags "ACH" (Anything Can Happen) uncertainty. The hit rates above represent a best-effort reconstruction from available post text and chart snapshot data; they should be treated as directional estimates rather than audited statistics.
 
**Conditional scenario (if/then/else) playthrough:** The author's if/then/else structure (e.g., "if TZ1 gives way, TZ2 calling; otherwise bulls reclaim") generally functioned as described when price was trending — the cascading TZ structure performed reasonably in the dominant bearish trend across both DOW and DAX. However, in range-bound or OT-tweet-disrupted sessions, the conditional chains were frequently voided mid-sequence, with the author openly acknowledging invalidation (e.g., "WOWC gap MM idea is invalidated," "didn't expect that"). The if/then logic is structurally sound but practically undermined by high-impact exogenous events.
 
---
 
## 3. Tetleys References
 
The author explicitly uses the term "Tetleys" to mean reading charts like tea leaves — i.e., acknowledging that a particular pattern or call is speculative/subjective rather than a high-confidence structured setup. The following explicit Tetleys references were flagged in the posts:
 
1. **"#DAX H1: TETLEYS for the M pattern, called some days back."** — Retroactive acknowledgment that an M pattern call was speculative
2. **"#DOW H4: another Tetleys 🙂 Like DAX, it's a good day for a correction, with price pretty much reversing from TZ1 and PRZ."** — Acknowledges the setup was tea-leaf reading, despite it working out
3. **"#DAX H1: Tetleys for ydays down TP."** — Post-hoc acknowledgment of a worked call being speculative in origin
4. **"I'm wary of even trying to read the tea leaves, with OT making billions for his mates with bullshit tweets."** — General disclaimer about OT-driven unpredictability making TA unreliable
5. **"#DAX H1: didn't expect that, obviously - not Tetleys ☹️"** — Explicit acknowledgment of a failed read; price moved contrary to expectation
 
**Pattern observation:** Tetleys references appear both prospectively (flagging uncertainty before a call) and retrospectively (either validating a lucky call or acknowledging a miss). The author uses it honestly — it is not systematically used to pre-excuse failures, though it does serve that function in some instances. Notably, the author distinguishes Tetleys calls from structured TZ/PRZ setups, which shows a degree of methodological self-awareness.
 
---
 
## 4. Notes
 
All abbreviations (TZ, PRZ, WOWC, OT, ACH, ADR, SDF, MM, TLB, FVG, Mo Bar, GZ, Be/Bu, CIM, MTG, SDZ, NEO, FTM, etc.) are defined in the author's pinned post and are not flagged as unclear. The term "OT" refers to a specific political figure whose policy actions and social media posts are treated as a systematic exogenous risk factor throughout the analysis period. "WOWC" stands for Week Open Week Close — this refers to the gap that frequently appears between Friday's close and Monday's open, and is used as a structural reference level. "FTM" means Follow The Money. "ACH" stands for Anything Can Happen, and is used to flag genuine coin-flip uncertainty in a setup. "Me Gap Pro" is a measured gap projection tool. "ROT" is a coined term used once humorously ("Random OT"). It is important to note that the heavy use of abbreviations throughout is a direct consequence of Bluesky's character limit on posts — the author is compressing what would otherwise be detailed explanatory commentary into concise shorthand. In a longer-form medium, significantly more context would be provided.
 
---
 
## 5. Executive Summary
 
### Overall Impression
 
Snormtrader produces content that is meaningfully above the baseline noise level found on financial social media. Crucially, the posts serve a specific and well-defined purpose: they are pre-session roadmaps, published before the London and New York opens, identifying high-probability price magnets for the coming session. The intended workflow for a follower is to study the levels identified before the session opens, wait for the session open to confirm directional bias, and then use lower timeframe charts (ideally the 1-minute or 5-minute) to find precision entries in the direction of the higher timeframe targets — a methodology that can produce high risk:reward trades when applied correctly. This context is essential for interpreting the posts: they are not real-time signals, and judging them as such misses the point entirely. The posts demonstrate genuine technical depth — multi-timeframe analysis, Fibonacci confluence, Elliott Wave labeling, ABC FE level targeting, Measured Move projections, and structured if/then/else conditional framing are all present and applied with evident understanding. The use of hedging language ("ACH," "could be plenty of other things") is not a weakness — it is an honest acknowledgement that markets are probabilistic, and responsible pre-session analysis should reflect that.
 
### Technical Quality
 
The technical quality is genuinely solid by retail standards and would not embarrass a professional. The author demonstrates real competency in Fibonacci retracement and extension clusters, identifying confluence zones where multiple levels stack (e.g., DAX 50% at 22,142 coinciding with WOWC gap structure and weekly 50% at 22,160 — a genuine confluence, not cherry-picked). The Elliott Wave labeling, while not always explicitly justified in the posts, appears structurally consistent across timeframes — the weekly wave counts on both DOW and DAX show a coherent impulsive-corrective framework that aligns with price behavior. The TZ system (TZ1/TZ2 across M15, H1, H4, D1) is a proprietary layering of ADR-relative targets combined with Fibonacci and structural levels, and it functions as a coherent framework rather than arbitrary line-drawing. Particularly noteworthy is the use of ABC Fibonacci Extension (FE) levels as targets and reversal zones — these have consistently proven to be among the most reliable calls in the post history and deserve particular attention from followers. Equally significant is the author's use of Measured Moves (MM) — a technique that projects a price move by replicating the magnitude of a prior swing. These MM projections appear frequently across both US30 and GER40 analysis and have an impressive track record as price targets, with the author regularly noting when MM ideas are "working a treat." The combination of ABC FE levels and MM projections gives the analytical framework a particularly strong forward-looking targeting capability that sets it apart from generic Fibonacci-only approaches. The use of VIX as a confirmation sub-indicator and the tracking of FVGs (Fair Value Gaps) as price magnets reflects awareness of institutional concepts. All analytical tools used — including the primary indicator eWaveHarmonics — have been developed by the author. It should be noted that despite the tool's name, harmonic pattern trading is not part of this methodology. Charts are densely annotated with multiple levels, which can initially appear overwhelming. However, this density is largely a consequence of Bluesky's character limit — the author condenses what would be detailed commentary into abbreviated shorthand. Once familiar with the abbreviation system (fully defined in the pinned post), the layered levels resolve into a coherent multi-timeframe structure rather than noise.
 
### Edge and Consistency
 
The author demonstrates a consistent bearish directional bias throughout the post corpus that has been broadly correct given the documented price action — DOW falling from ~50,500 to ~45,200 and DAX from ~25,520 to ~22,160 represents substantial moves that the author was clearly positioned for in advance. The 22K DAX target and the 46K DOW support level were both called well ahead of price reaching them and are confirmed by the chart data. The if/then/else conditional framework is structurally consistent — the author identifies TZ1 as an initial target and TZ2 as a secondary target contingent on TZ1 being breached, and this cascading logic is applied uniformly across instruments and timeframes. However, the consistency of the framework is partially undermined by the frequency of "no-change" days, where the author essentially rolls forward the same analysis without new insight, and by the recurring practice of presenting both bull and bear scenarios simultaneously with roughly equal weighting, which guarantees partial correctness regardless of outcome. The specific call of "50% retracement at 43.5K is looking good for next couple of weeks" on DOW Weekly represents a genuine advance prediction that can be objectively evaluated as time progresses. The level identification is clearly done in advance rather than retrofitted, which is a meaningful positive.
 
### Prediction Accuracy
 
Based on the TZ hit rate analysis, the author achieves estimated hit rates in the 40–57% range across timeframes and zones, with TZ1 targets (the nearer, more conservative target) hitting more frequently (~55–57%) than TZ2 targets (~33–50%). This is a respectable result for TZ1, and TZ2 hit rates reflect the inherent difficulty of cascading targets in volatile conditions. The broader directional calls (DAX down to 22K, DOW bearish below 46K, oil disruption driving indices lower) have been accurate and called with conviction. Accuracy on specific intraday TZ levels is harder to assess because follow-up confirmation posts are not always present — establishing a systematic outcome-tracking habit would significantly strengthen the public record. The "OT tweet" events represent a genuine challenge: when a 3.7% gap occurs in minutes on political news, no technical system can be expected to predict it, and the author is appropriately transparent about this. The frequency of such exogenous disruptions during this particular period — a sustained regime of politically-driven gap opens — is a genuine feature of the macro environment rather than an excuse, and should be read in that context.
 
### Audience Fit
 
This content is purpose-built for experienced day traders who trade the London and New York sessions on instruments such as US30 and GER40. The correct use of these posts is as a pre-session preparation tool: the trader reviews the identified price magnets (TZs, PRZs, ABC FE levels, MM targets) before the session open, waits for the open to confirm directional bias, and then drops to a low timeframe (1-minute or 5-minute chart) to find a precise entry in the direction of the higher timeframe target. This approach — higher timeframe target identification combined with lower timeframe entry timing — is the framework that delivers the high risk:reward trades the methodology is designed for. Beginners will find the abbreviation system and multi-timeframe framework a steep learning curve, but the pinned abbreviations post and consistent application of the system mean that a committed follower can get up to speed. Swing traders and position traders will find the weekly and daily level identification (DAX 50% retracement, DOW 38.2% PRZ, annual opens) directly useful as structural anchors. The content is less suited to fully automated traders or those seeking pre-packaged entry/exit signals — this is an analytical framework requiring the trader to supply their own execution discipline.
 
### Suggestions
 
A few specific additions would increase the value of these posts for followers. The most impactful would be a brief follow-up post after each session noting which TZ levels were hit and which were not — this would allow followers to build their own understanding of the hit rates by timeframe and instrument over time. A short preamble on each post explicitly stating "pre-London" or "pre-NY" would help new followers immediately understand the intended use of the analysis. The geopolitical commentary (OT references), while contextually relevant, could occasionally be separated more clearly from the technical levels to make the key levels easier to extract at a glance before a session opens. These are refinements rather than fundamental changes — the core methodology is sound and the pre-session roadmap format is well-suited to the way professional and semi-professional day traders actually prepare.
 
### Verdict
 
**Worth monitoring — with managed expectations.**
 
Snormtrader is a technically competent practitioner producing genuine pre-session roadmaps with real Fibonacci, Elliott Wave, ABC FE level, and Measured Move depth. All tools used are custom-built by the author. The directional calls on DAX and DOW during the documented period have been broadly correct and called in advance — this is not a hindsight-narrative account. The ABC FE levels and Measured Move (MM) projections in particular stand out as consistently reliable price targets. For a trader who understands the intended workflow — study the pre-session levels, wait for the session open to confirm direction, then use a 1-minute or 5-minute chart to find a precise entry toward the higher timeframe target — this account offers a genuinely useful and analytically rigorous preparation tool. The risk:reward potential of this approach, when the session open confirms the anticipated direction, can be substantial. A trader who takes the time to learn the system (abbreviations, TZ framework, WOWC gaps, ABC FE levels, MM projections) will find a well-structured pre-session framework that is considerably more sophisticated than most freely available analysis. Verdict: follow and study the methodology — the value is in understanding the framework, not in mechanically copying individual calls.