I found that quote quite fitting actually. Pitty they deleted it. Conversely it expresses what can not happen to the: "past predicts the future" - tight - passive - "smart" - only going by abstracting commonalities and everything else is a red flag guys, who therefore can not see exceptional potential in the individual case (and yes, it's a necessity therefore that things are and look messy). They go on what everybody knows, "hide" in the crowed as NW just put it and that is just being to unadventurous to even be noticed by miss fortune.
Whoever puts all on one card on the other hand could find Hell at the end of the road. I'd still admire this more than those who give themselves the illusion, that they and only they know thanks to their standard well worn methods, what really is going on, whilst there still is a huge lot going on "behind the scenes".
In the end that it is not a more scientific approach - it's just a different philosophy. It just favors staying in the game longer by reducing variance. Probably a mixture (80%-90% carefull - 10%-20% taking "interesting" wagers) of both concepts is best IMO. But I'm new to the game, so if I'm totally wrong, I would like to hear more about their "perfect" way to success on the market.
Market Data 
Markets 
