Consider the analogy of playing tennis against a tennis commentator (who wasn't formerly a professional). Sure, the commentator understands the game at a deeper level than your average joe, but it's a very different kind of understanding/skill from the pros making the money. I'd give myself better odds to beat the commentator / SE working for a market maker than the pro / fund manager.

This applies to journalism at large, but for market and trading analysis in particular, professors fit into this category much more than in other fields (such as engineering, where there is still a disconnect between academia and industry). In trading, anyone who truly understands the market at such a powerful level is using that knowledge to make money. It's a complex adaptive system, so publishing financially actionable research in the field is usually pointless because the market adapts. In my anecdotal experience, even engineers / employees of quant funds like yourself do not often really understand the market when they were focused on some specific piece of infrastructure / a part of someone else's larger design. When left alone without the infrastructure and systems they were used to, breaking even is often their best case scenario.

But this is all beside the point. Instead of personal attacks, getting defensive, and bowing to credentials, consider thinking for yourself and addressing the content, if you reply.

Source: I'm an anonymous professional trader who beats the market.