Quote from the1:
If a person says the market is mostly random it is because he IS a thinking person. It takes a lot of brain power and time to analyze the markets from a statistical standpoint. Simply getting into the schools that offer these programs requires a high GPA and GRE score. "Lazy thinker?" That's actually quite funny. When you use stats to base your trades on the strategies are limited only by your imagination and your acumen for mathematics.
Here's an example of Time Series Analysis. Still think Quants are lazy thinkers?
http://www.unizar.es/galdeano/actas_pau/PDFVIII/pp425-435.pdf
And then there's the programming aspect of trading and ability for your application to learn and adjust to changing market conditions. I can assure you quantitative traders are anything but lazy thinkers.
Usually our conversations are unproductive.
But, thank you for proving my point.
You may wish to consider how to set up a problem solving process. So should the authors.
This laziness IS what leads to the performance so dear to CW based myths and beliefs.
Could you glance at the last three days?
My basic trading rule is to enter on the first bar and hold until I have taken the market's offer of a given segment. As I take the profit segment, I reverse.
As you see on each day, I take MORE than 1/3 of the margin required to double my money every three days.
This AM I could have left 3 points on the table, not traded for the rest of the day, and still reached the goal of doubling in three days.
The above defines what it is to be lazy in the technical sense.
The authors of your referenced article are lazy in the intellectual sense.
I did the thinking once to be able to perform as the market dictated for the last three days. I was NOT intellectually lazy and I now have performance.
Your authors are lazy and they do not have performance. They actually BELIEVE that the market characteristics change as time passes. They have years and years of training that prevents them from finding out how Behavioral Finance (BF) works.
BF dictates a "process" for getting the answer. The authors did NOT use it.
Lets say you embark on getting onto the path and you use three days (most recent) to prove to yourself to use BF.
By next Friday, I believe you can do the first and second steps of problem solving. If you do, then share a little and flush the referenced article down the toilet for good reason.
My GRE score is higher than your standard by quite a bit. My studies in TP were paid for by those who recruited me. My Profs were of a much higher quality than the Profs of the authors. TP doesn't work in the financial industry.