[csallen]

The changes were to add details explaining the 95% "success rate", the sources of data, and the exchange that he was using.

I think you guys are both creating a false dichotomy between "genius who cracked the market" and "liar who is fabricating data", when there is plenty of room in between, e.g. "someone who made a few lucky trades in a bull market over a short period of time," which would describe probably the vast majority of "winners" in the stock market.

It's the equivalent of asserting that everyone who plays a slot machine must break even, when in reality some people win and some people lose.

[alva]

Hey. As we spoke about this earlier today, could you please post the original before the edits post our conversation?

edit: I rang the bloody alarm bells about this submission with you. I hope I am wrong, but it looks like you have been had.

[csallen]

Sure, they were additions rather than edits:

Addition #1: "For proprietary reasons I will abstain from publicly discussing a lot of details about the technical implementation. Although I get many requests to open-source the project, I believe that disclosing deep details of the models or prediction approach would hurt the advantages that this solutions has over the other existing bots. However, for anyone willing to learn more about that, I would be more than happy to discuss in private, to some extent."

Addition #2: "...worked around 95% of the time. Now this is not by any means a reliable metric, and there are many factors that affect it. The bot has not been tested enough to guarantee that this isn't just a fluke (it might as well be). Large investment management companies would do anything to achieve those statistics, and I'm sure I won't keep up that amount of success in upcoming trades. The success so far was also greatly impacted by the favorable market conditions, chosen stocks, and the fact that the bot was running intermittently."

Addition #3: "For trading I recommend Kite, mainly for their stable Connect APIs and the low bandwidth. Their limitation is 3 requests per second, and this was more than enough for my new strategy. Getting solid historical financial data isn't cheap, and with so many people hitting the providers to scrape and download data, I don't blame them for limiting the offered information. Intrinio is a good provider for real-time stock quotes at very inexpensive prices. However, getting access to more in-depth data would always yield better results."

[sebyddd]

alva, I found your skepticism very biased. Following your requests, we decided it would help if we address your questions in the interview. Therefore the only edits, where just addition around the 95% claim which seemed to be misunderstood.

Your main claim was that the bot cannot achieve 95% trade success trade constantly, which I undoubtedly agreed to and added more details on this claim.

The edit also provided more details about the platforms that I used along the way, as this detail was overlooked in the initial version of the interview.

I find your claims unfounded and harassing.

[alva]

Post your historic and current positions, opened and closed.

I am not the only one who is extremely sceptical about your claims.