I really like the retrospective articles. I think they’re a key component to QS being regarded as honest and fair. They also provide lessons on the thought process that goes into identifying speculation targets. If anything, I learn more from the misses than the hits.

Excellent suggestion. Next time I’ll do that. I think I’d like at least 4 months for any speculation targets to pan out or not. So I’m thinking every few months I may do one of these types of articles.

Lol…have you tried it in a Gruul or Naya EDH build? It’s disgusting…but I will grant you that outside of those 2 colors..it’s probably not spectacular.

Yes!!! We definitely benefit from them. They help us to see a full arc of buy through sell for a card, and it helps to outline the reasons why the prediction behaved the way it did. It’s a great framework for evaluating our own transactions and predicting new ones.

you’re right about Angelic Skirmisher though

While you laid out the amounts in the paragraphs afterwards, it might help on your next one to put the amounts next to the cards.

Ensnaring Bridge – $2.50, now $6.50

ect. That way anyone can also look at the cards themselves as they read about it and your reasoning.

While I don’t normally actually say “buy/sell” I feel that in the end that’s what my analysis/predictions should in fact indicate (there’s a reason that Jim Kramer goes with that strategy). I hope our subscribers enjoy it, but I felt that without retrospectively looking at my previous calls I can’t judge how accurate I’ve been. I wouldn’t be suited to keep writing if my calls were continuously wrong and I kept losing people money. I recall reading someone mentioning (I apologize as I don’t remember who wrote it) that lots of writers jump back to their good calls and just gloss over the bad ones, I think that’s very misleading and that to justify getting paid to write about speculation targets I need to maintain a good track record across the board, rather than getting a good hit here and there.