iFVG Noob

Lesson 11 · Bootcamp Ep. 34

iFVGs (My Main Strategy)

iFVG · inverse fair value gap · liquidity sweep · body close · multi-timeframe execution · risk management

Core idea

This lesson introduces the creator's primary entry model: instead of assuming that every fair value gap will hold, he waits for price to close through an obvious FVG and then trades in the opposite direction. The broken gap becomes an inverse fair value gap (iFVG).

Left: the original bearish gap rejects a retest. Right: a body close above it establishes a bullish inversion in the creator's model. Illustrative model, not a price forecast.

Liquidity establishes whether a reversal makes sense; a body close through an obvious FVG confirms the iFVG; the next high, low or inefficiency supplies the initial target.

Bullish iFVG

Price sweeps meaningful sell-side liquidity.
A clear bearish FVG is visible above price.
Price reverses and a candle body closes above the bearish FVG.
The failed bearish gap becomes bullish support.
Enter on the close or a retracement, then target the next high or inefficiency.

Bearish iFVG

Price sweeps meaningful buy-side liquidity.
A clear bullish FVG is visible below price.
Price reverses and a candle body closes below the bullish FVG.
The failed bullish gap becomes bearish resistance.
Enter on the close or a retracement, then target the next low or inefficiency.

Lesson map

0:00–1:50

Normal FVG model versus iFVG model

The traditional model enters when price retraces into an FVG after a liquidity sweep and structure shift.
The creator considers that approach harder because the trader must be highly accurate about the draw on liquidity.
His preferred model waits to see whether the FVG fails.
When price closes through the gap, he trades the resulting inversion instead of assuming the original gap will hold.

1:50–4:35

Liquidity context comes first

After a large selloff sweeps a major low, blindly shorting the next bearish FVG may mean selling too low.
The creator looks for one large, obvious gap that newer traders are likely to recognize and trade conventionally.
If price immediately rebounds from sell-side liquidity and closes above that bearish gap, he treats the close as bullish confirmation.
Wicks may cross the gap, but he prefers the candle body to close through it.
His recurring distinction is: wicks perform the sweep; bodies provide the stronger confirmation.

4:35–8:58

Timeframes, entries and risk

The creator uses 1M–5M charts for entries.
He uses 15M and higher charts for bias, not normal execution.
A single obvious FVG provides a cleaner invalidation area than several overlapping gaps.
If two nearby FVGs exist, price may react from either one; the creator may wait until both are broken.
A slightly higher execution timeframe can combine several lower-timeframe gaps into one clearer zone.
He commonly enters at the confirming candle's close when risk is acceptable.
If the confirming candle is unusually large, he may wait for a retracement.
In his example, he reduces intended risk by roughly 12.5%—$175 instead of $200—to allow for imprecise stop placement.
A body close back through the iFVG is treated as evidence that price may revisit the swept extreme.

9:00–12:00

Multiple-gap and target logic

When two bearish FVGs sit above price, breaking only the lower one is not enough because the upper gap may still reject price.
He waits for the last relevant gap to be violated before calling the bullish inversion complete.
The first destination is the next high or inefficiency created after the iFVG.
Reaching that destination may justify taking partial profit or moving the stop to break-even.
A three-minute example is refined with a 30-second re-entry; the creator treats the 30-second chart as advanced rather than necessary.

12:00–16:00

Which gaps qualify

The preferred gap is recent, singular, large and visible to the naked eye.
It should form in a leg that makes sense relative to liquidity.
If the confirming candle already reaches the next high while closing through the gap, the original target has already been delivered; the setup is no longer attractive.
Small, old or clustered gaps are lower quality.
A chart filled with many overlapping gaps lacks the clean “signature in price” he wants.

16:00–20:26

iFVG is only the entry model

The strongest example forms after three equal lows are swept in discount.
The liquidity event explains why a bullish reversal makes sense; the iFVG only supplies execution.
If the iFVG never forms, the market may still rally, but the creator has no entry under this model.
Do not scan the market for random inversions while ignoring liquidity, premium/discount and the broader draw.
A broken gap after the relevant lows have already been swept can produce chop instead of continuation.
The video's final rule is explicit: read the market through liquidity first and use iFVGs second.

Practical checklist

What meaningful liquidity was swept before the inversion?
Does reversal make sense in premium/discount and within the broader draw?
Is the FVG singular, recent and obvious?
Did a candle body close completely through the relevant gap?
Are there additional nearby gaps that must also be broken?
Has the next high/low already been reached by the confirmation candle?
Will execution occur on the close or after a retracement?
Where is invalidation: beyond the recent swing or the full gap structure?
What is the next high, low or inefficiency?
If context is poor, should the iFVG be ignored?

Rules to retain

Liquidity first; iFVG second.
Bodies confirm; wicks alone are insufficient.
Prefer one obvious gap over a cluster of small gaps.
Use 1M–5M for normal entries and 15M+ for bias.
If several gaps overlap, wait for the complete structure to break or check a slightly higher timeframe.
The next unswept high/low or inefficiency is the initial objective.
Do not take the setup if that objective was already delivered during confirmation.

Drawn examples

Traditional FVG versus iFVG: enter at the original gap versus wait for it to break and trade from the other side.
Ideal bullish iFVG: equal-low/SSL sweep → bearish FVG → body close above → long → next high.
Ideal bearish iFVG: BSL sweep → bullish FVG → body close below → short → next low.
Wick versus body: wicks pierce the gap but do not confirm until the candle body closes through it.
Two-gap problem: the first gap breaks while the second remains active; entry waits until both are cleared.
Cross-timeframe cleanup: two 1M gaps appear as one obvious 2M gap.
Target-already-hit failure: the inversion candle closes through the gap and reaches the next high simultaneously, removing the clean target.
Three-minute plus 30-second entry: higher execution signal followed by a lower-timeframe re-entry.
Good versus bad signature: one large recent gap compared with many small clustered gaps and chop.
Context-first example: three equal lows swept in discount before the bullish iFVG forms.

A sell-side sweep supplies context. Close above the entire bearish gap, then target the next high if it remains available. Illustrative model, not a price forecast.

A buy-side sweep precedes a body close below the bullish gap. The next low supplies an initial target. Illustrative model, not a price forecast.

A wick beyond the far boundary does not meet the body-close rule. The right candle closes beyond the full gap. Illustrative model, not a price forecast.

The lower gap breaks while an upper gap can still reject price. The creator waits for both relevant zones to clear. Illustrative model, not a price forecast.

The same price leg can show two small 1M gaps and one clearer 2M zone. Aggregation clarifies the execution area. Illustrative model, not a price forecast.

If the inversion candle also reaches the next high, the original target is spent. Do not assume fresh reward remains. Illustrative model, not a price forecast.

An advanced refinement: the 3M inversion supplies the signal, followed by a separate 30-second re-entry model. Normal entries remain 1M–5M. Illustrative model, not a price forecast.

One recent, visible gap offers a cleaner reference than many small overlapping gaps in choppy delivery. Illustrative model, not a price forecast.

Three equal lows in discount are swept before the bullish inversion. The liquidity event explains the idea; the iFVG supplies execution. Illustrative model, not a price forecast.

The creator describes iFVGs as very high probability and attributes large candles to institutional or algorithmic orders. Those are elements of his trading framework, not independently verified facts. A body close through an FVG can still fail, and the stated probabilities should be tested with the trader's own data.

Back to study library Next lesson