I like your suggestions. I see you gave a great amount of thought to allow for different modes for different types of investors.

As a matter of fact, I do apply your suggestion #1 in my account. In my case I refer to it as building CORE position. I achieve that by superimposing trading and core pyramids that have different parameters. Thus they overlap when it comes to buying. On the sell side, only trading pyramid gets sold since core pyramid is to be sold at much higher prices (or even at prices that have not been defined yet).

I think having core (or growth as you put it) is extremely important in wealth building process, especially in bull markets (think Gold). Trading pyramid captures volatility and creates more ounces, while core pyramid acquires ounces on weakness and captures the uptrend. There is also certain advantage of having separate pyramids for trading and core since one can have them in separate accounts. Core pyramid would be much “slower” in action and core account does not need to be monitored on a frequent basis. That approach has certain merits in controlling one’s emotions. Investor is not temped to sell the core in fear or greed if they don’t look at the account on a daily basis.

I think your suggestion #2 is very appropriate. The biggest money is made out of the hole! Ability to vary the step size is very useful. I think Average True Range (ATR) can be utilized here to tweak trading based on recent amount of volatility in the market. When ATR drops, step size can be reduced to “suck” more profits from a given lower volatility conditions. It holds the other way round too. Downside is that investor needs to make another decision about the step size. I don’t mind doing that but some investors may prefer not fiddling much with the process once they initiate it. Of course, you leave up to the investor to adjust things or not. Even if they dislike tweaking various factors, at least you gave them an option.

I find what may not be enough options for me is more than some other people can handle. So again, you have the basic concept that works and who wants more control or options has to put up with increased complexity. I think that is perfectly fine although there is probably some fine line where increase in complexity does not produce more profits (law of diminishing returns).

Your explanation on the pyramid-nature of the buys and sells is quite well presented. Also, you presented the fact that the exact shape of the buy and sell sizes can be chosen. …a point I have made a primary issue in the Vortex Investment Method. . .an upside down Vortex also looks more or less like a Pyramid, so our systems are rather similar! The name Vortex Investing and Turbovest Investing are named with a different idea in mind than addressing the step sizes structure:

A vortex (in fluid dynamics) creates a “sucking action”. . .it sucks up the loose money from investors that Buy High (greed driven) and Sell Low (fear driven).

The Turbo is like a very strong vortex. . a tornado! Turbovest does the same thing as the program Vortex. . only much more aggressively!

A suggestion for you Pyramid Shapes

Some investors may be interested more in equity growth rather than direct profit creaming:
1) You could increase the strength of the buying steps and weaken the selling steps. The investor would systematically add extra money to his portfolio as prices dip down. This is the Portfolio Growth Mode;
2) For investors that have a healthy portfolio already and want to liquidate their investment as they are retiring the selling steps can be increased and the buying steps be decreased, but if prices periodically drop deep the buying action could “kick in” strongly and they would buy extra equity at opportunity price that in the turnaround of the price dip throws off the extra profit as cash. This is a Portfolio Liquidation Mode

In my Vortex System such “pyramid step sizes” can easily be chosen by the investor using simple buy-aggression factors and sell-aggression factors. . .as they see fit. In effect this would mean that the Pyramids Shapes you explained are in the Vortex System rather flexible. The down side of this is that this flexibility. . .if used. . . makes optimizing the system more complex, so the users have to choose between simplicity and complexity, all depending on how much time they want to spend on “sucking” more or less money out of the market.