[chezlaw]

You have me completely wrong. I don't know why you don't address the points instead of attacking me.



[ QUOTE ]
You clearly don't want to consider any evidence that goes against your beliefs. Some of the people on poker bustouts supported themselves for more than 20 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to think I'm questioning you because I'm close minded. You are wrong as you would find out if you actually persued any line of argument rather than introducing more seemingly irrelevent examples. Pro's with 20 years experience going broke might be relevent but this is the first time you've mentioned them.



[ QUOTE ]
But there is immensely more to survival as a pro than just playing hands and having a bankroll. That's one of the points Ed Miller and I have been trying to make.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ed Miller posts always seem well reasoned. perhaps he would like to comment for himself on the claim you found absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Winning player. Someone having played 100,000's of hands beating the game for enough. Ring games not tournaments.

2) Well bankrolled. Something like 1000 big bets for their level and 6 months living expensis.

3) Assume the games remain good.

We can argue about precise definitions of 1) and 2) [by 'enough' in 1. I don't just mean enough to survive each month] . 3) is an assumption for the sake of discussion.

I reckon that anyone satisfying 1)-3) has an excellent chance of making it as a pro? If you insist this is absurd then can you give us the reasons why you think its absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

[I have changed a few of the words to make the quote clearer but I don't think I changed the meaning].



[ QUOTE ]
As a professor and parent, I am used to that attitude. I recognize that NOTHING I or anyone else can say to you will have any impact.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a bit silly isn't it? I think your mistaken and ask you for an explanation. You don't explain but tell me I should believe you because your exerienced, and you conclude there's something wrong with me!

chez