The point of consequence
This reframes the entire exectuion problem beautifully. Treating adverse excursion as invalidation rather than noise is brutal but intellectually honest, it’s basically saying if the market doesn't immediatly confirm the read then the read was wrong. I've seen similar logic in market making where adverse selection kills you way faster than directional risk, but applying it systematicaly to discretionary entries feels diffrent.
You’re picking up on the right thing — this reframes the problem at the hardest possible layer.
I deliberately operate where the odds are most stacked against the participant: the benchmark itself, at the shortest time horizon, where acceptance, mark-to-market, and the close all converge. That’s where beta is sourced, where NAV is decided, and where mistakes are immediately punished.
Direction alone isn’t sufficient there. Neither is timing alone. I’m solving for direction, timing, and immediate acceptance — with adverse excursion treated as invalidation, not noise.
That’s why this ends up touching highs, lows, pivots, and sometimes the close itself. You’re interacting with the market’s temporal layer — when price must move — not just where it might go.
Most people underestimate the difficulty because they don’t operate at this layer. Calling a multi-hour move is impressive. Calling it from the benchmark, with no drawdown, under the clock, and knowing exactly when not to be in is a different problem entirely.
If that distinction isn’t obvious, it’s usually not disagreement — it’s unfamiliarity with how markets actually resolve risk at the point of consequence.