In case anyone doesn't feel like wading through the 25 pages of the win limitations thread, here's some thoughts:

Frank is making the point that, like GA and AA, Singer's system may "work" in some sense without being "true." In other words, if a person loses less, or spends better quality life hours by adhering to Singer's recommendations, then the system may be of value. Sorry if I've over-interpreted here, but I'm an old English major and literary analysis is what we do.

Also, Frank, I am very glad to see you're familiar with locus of control themes and Michael Shermer. Next I'll discover you helped found CSICOP!!

You have obviously taken a good look at how various subfields in the sciences can be applied to what we call "gambling." It's great stuff, and it's a wonderful (and largely untouched) keyhole through which to view things. We have some common planes of interest here; fascinating stuff.

Anyway, one interesting detail is Frank's assessment of 50-100 vp pros in Las Vegas. Coincidentally, when I'm asked how many sports bettors or teams of such actually win long-term, my answer is between 50-100 across the country.

Back to your regularly scheduled debate. This is going to get fascinating.