Originally Posted by
Alan Mendelson
Actually, it's not my analogy. It is something that we learned and studied in formal economics training. I think I mentioned this before, but I had all the credit hours required for a dual major in economics but only lacked the science courses to actually receive a dual major from the Maxwell School at Syracuse. What is an accepted principle of economics is that people will take the actions that best serve them even if it is not a strict (written down) course of action. Call it instinct, if you will, people and busiensses and governments -- and I would even suggest gamblers -- do what is right for them as they assess their own personal situations. Is this foolproof? Of course not. If it were foolproof we would not have involuntary bankruptcies. Voluntary bankruptcies are, like budgeting, a plan for doing what is best in the long term.
Rob, you might not have the data to influence others, but if you determined your data worked for you, then others should not criticize it. They might elect not to accept it because it does not fit their needs -- but that doesn't mean it didn't fit your needs.
Again we come back to something I wrote several times before: If you wrote a book that said "How I beat the casinos" instead of writing "My system can help you beat the casinos" you would be a hero. No one can criticize one person's unique success. And you might have had a unique success that others may also find value in.
In short the controversy is about the packaging of your product and not the product itself.