> This is the kind of thing that demonstrates a serious weakness in FX.
One of the difficulties with FX (and I'm not accusing/criticizing Chris of
this, but making a general point) is that there is an incentive to realize
that the wording of a claim means that you have a different interpretation
than everyone else, and if you can convince the judge of your
interpretation then you stand to earn a lot by going against the intent of
I personally benefited from this (or perhaps abused this) from the old
claim "Astrology is statistically significant" by realizing that the claim
simply boiled down to "the time of year or the location of birth can
influence a person's personality" and found a wealth of psych studies
proving that. This clearly did not match with everyone's interpretation of
"astrology," and so the market was heavily skewed in the other direction.
There's no great solution, because there is no incentive to post the
question and clear the air before making purchases, or you lose any
advantage. That said, if you recognize you're betting against the market,
despite no new data but because of an interpretation difference, it's
probably good to post to the mailing list eventually, and chose to buy
ahead of time or not depending on your own guess at how likely it is you'll
be able to convince people.
(Obviously the true solution is to make the "intent" clear as possible in
the wording of the claim, and for the non-claim-writers to ask as many
questions and poke as many holes as possible during the writing phase, but
that doesn't help after the fact.)