Mission Statement - Fewer clients. Less money.
Yeah, "Jerry Maquire". Anyway, as it applies to CAPS - I know it's not what you want to hear, but I think we would be better off if you picked fewer stocks and got fewer points.
TMF wants us to pick a lot of stocks so that they can aggregate a lot of data and combine our intelligence to come up with ratings that are more accurate and cover more stocks than the pros. But you can't make a worthwhile analysis of 200 stocks (unless you just do a few at a time) and you certainly can't keep up with all of them. Anyway, at this point we are 37,667 strong so is it even necessary? To paraphrase a TMF criticism of Wall Street, "AAPL has 9595 picks. Will one more tell you anything new?"
Is someone with 5000 points a better stock picker than someone with 500 points? If they do it over the same time frame and with the same number of picks then yes. However people start at different times and have different numbers of picks. Not only do new players need to pick a lot of stocks to catch up but they also need to take more risks. A good player can achieve high accuracy pretty quickly but points take time. Without a fair way to compare players that overall score benchmark will just get farther away from new players as time goes on. Anyway, I'm not trying to say you shouldn't try to get lots of points. You should just do it with a number of stocks that you can reasonable keep track of. And there's nothing wrong with taking risk. Since this isn't a real life portfolio that is tied to your level of assets and when you plan to retire then the consideration of risk only applies to your goals for CAPS and to what stocks move you to provide some input. But as time passes and overall scores get higher, picking risky stocks to hit big winners becomes a necessity for new players to catch up.