I&#x27;ll credit you for indeed finding something &quot;interesting&quot;, but there&#x27;s a telling comparison to be made between the criticisms in this Amazon review and the criticisms made in Kovac&#x27;s book.<p>The Amazon review is based on the premise that Kovac doesn&#x27;t know what he&#x27;s talking about at all (that&#x27;s a tough sell, since Kovac runs a trading firm), and builds that argument through fuzzy error claims like &quot;Kovac got the number of trading venues at a particular date wrong&quot; (the whole value of Kovac&#x27;s prop firm was that it traded in zillions of markets) or &quot;Computerization was less impactful in bringing down spreads than decimalization&quot;.<p>Kovac&#x27;s book, on the other hand, is hundreds of pages of page-by-page technical criticism of the Lewis book.<p>This reviewer was supplied by Kovac with a mountain of rebuttable claims. What they came up with was &quot;Academic and industry researchers have certainly found compelling evidence of high frequency trading firms front-running demand&quot;. But &quot;front-running demand&quot; isn&#x27;t a technical term; it&#x27;s an advocacy label coined by people who oppose algorithmic trading!<p>When your mic-drop closing criticism, the one you expand upon in your &quot;updated&quot; critique, is a tautological restatement of the position you&#x27;re advocating for, you&#x27;re doing something other than technical criticism. Which is fine, but let&#x27;s be clear about it.