Comment on Miller's Editorial

[12AX7]

True, there would be the problem of being able to accurately audit my results. A fair consideration im a group of people who play a game who's name mean "to bluff". I.E. lie. LOL!

And heck I'd want to put the following sort of provision in place from my side:

1) .too pay instructor x xx% of my *post tax net* calculated Jan 1 to Jan 1, year to year..

LOL!

I'm the type that always thought a stockbroker should be paid as a percentage of my gains, and have to re-imburse me for losses (on his particular reccomendations, can't hold him liable for my own judgements). That's the only way I can see to make a brokerage house's goals and the client's goals align. Smith-Barney's bottom line needs to be tied to my own. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Anyway, yeah, I guess it'd be a hard deal to enforce properly. But I don't know how else you could make a clear cut challenge to the poker literati of it.

I see these two story lines going. A) 95% fail. B) Folks make $xxx,000 a year at it "easily".

As one poster pointed out, you could interpret that this way....(though he used garbage men)...

"A Surgeon 'easily' can make $200,000 a year [but it takes a lot of work and is very hard to get to be a surgeon]."

But the way you generally encounter it in the literature it isn't couched that way. I'm sure you can find several places in SSHE where the optimistic interpretation is highlighted.

No crack on the book. It is one of the most direct and readable poker texts I've ever seen. Wish I'd had it years ago.

But in a similar vien, I mess with digital recording somewhat. If you are familiar with it, maybe you know what a PODxt is? (A guitar amp simulator.) Thier manuals and literature make it sound like the sound of all the classic rock tunes are built right in. The reality is something quite different, as some 120,000 post on one bulletin board alone testify.

So many things do not live up to thier hype, that I for one have become a cynic. And unapolgetically so. LOL!