Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

A really, really modest proposal

Recs

0

January 19, 2007 – Comments (4)

My quibbles with the CAPS incentive structure run very, very deep. Given management resistance to my many critiques, I shall start with a simple, transparently correct suggestion to improve the system: axe the twenty-minute change-my-mind period.

Currently, anyone can game the system for twenty minutes of price action, and cancel if wrong. A free twenty minutes times 200 possible picks -- I wager dollars to donuts someone out there, probably one of the more "successful" players, is already doing it.

There is a "yes I'm sure" button for a reason. Put the best scores above suspicion.

4 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 20, 2007 at 5:19 PM, TMFJake (76.05) wrote:

Yep, we are evaluating doing just this.

--jk

p.s. Thanks for starting to put substantive analysis in your pitches. May I just that you put your analysis first in your pitch, and then, when appropriate, append to the analysis your communication that you are only taking an action to improve your CAPS accuracy and you are not re-iterating your original call.

p.p.s. Since we share the goal of building a rich database of community intelligence, I'd like to remove your pitches that don't have any analysis on your stock pick. I hope you would support this move.

Report this comment
#2) On January 21, 2007 at 12:18 AM, wcwhiner (33.54) wrote:

jk -

Glad to see you're considering it. Why not pull the trigger? What possible utility does a twenty-minute changed-my-mind period serve?

Sure, if you want to remove all purely nonsubstantive pitches, please do. However, please be very persnickety about leaving whining pitches that include substantive points. Even a braindead sector play is a bet.

-wcw

Report this comment
#3) On January 21, 2007 at 1:51 PM, TMFJake (76.05) wrote:

Ho ho! Sorry we're not moving fast enough. I'm sure you understand that we want changes to the scoring system to be infrequent, substantive, fully tested and working properly!

Thanks for being gracious about the purely nonsubstantive pitches. We will remove them. I do support your ability to combine substantive points with whining about the game rules leading you to take action that you wouldn't otherwise. As I said, I'd prefer that to be a toned down postscript rather than the lead however. The reason I continue our conversation is I know you embrace the goals of our project. I do appreciate that, as well as the substantive contributions you make with your picks and pitches.

Report this comment
#4) On January 21, 2007 at 3:26 PM, wcwhiner (33.54) wrote:

On major and even minor scoring changes, I fully expected a more considered process. On the waiting period, however, which does not affect scoring and does not (to my mind) provide any benefit, I was surprised.

No worries about removing the pure whines. I'll put in something a little more useful than those as I find time.

My pitches would not only be less whiny but also get a whole lot better if I believed my forty best risk-adjusted picks would outperform a sector rotation strategy of two hundred. I doubt I am alone. While some can follow hundreds of names, only the superhuman will also write useful pitches for them all.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement