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.
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.