This is a rather shallow and redundant read. The author is taking a huge a bite and isn't really chewing all the way. I think this line in the outro does a good job demonstrating the author's ignorance:

>The difference between me, my Python scripts, and a hedge-fund quant isn’t insight - it’s scale.

This is not doing the profession of quant trading any justice. The author's experiments scratched the surface of approaches that were relevant decades ago, and although I wouldn't say any of this is incorrect in its details, it kind of fails to actually explain what a "quant" actually does. Like, stepping away from this article, it is not clear what would differentiate a quant from an algotrader, which seems like the whole point of this post.

Just seems like a swing and a miss. I've read too many articles about algotrading to just not see the same exact content again.

I've also been trying to find out for the past 18 months. Haven't deployed the thing yet but I'm confident my backtests are realistic and good enough to go for it. If I had to summarize my experience until now, it would be:

1. It can be done. Read the Market Wizards books and you'll see.

2. Whatever your approach, you will be forced to leave no stone unturned. Each assumption you make, up to the most tiny and innocent-looking one, will eventually have to be understood and tested.

3. This is the most exciting and meaningful (professional) adventure I've had. The beauty of the thing is this: whatever shit capitalism has born, it's brought along the means to transcend it. You beat the Machine mechanically.

To whoever embarks on this path in all seriousness, I wish we meet on the other side. Good luck.

I would have preferred this wasn't so heavily written or edited by AI.

Sorry, what's the point here? This looks like baby's first attempt at using technical indicators to trade stocks. It maybe would've had something to do with Quant Trading if we went back 40 years.