Re: Thirty Plays in 30 Days
I read your post defending the mentality and goals of those who are just here for others to help them find some extra winners or buoy their own mediocre plays, Munson. You asked if I could respect it, and I'm afraid I can't make that leap, but I can at least understand where you're coming from. For myself, the only plays with significance are the ones I can generate myself, because those periods of mediocre results give me extra incentive to refine my systems and consider new criteria. I understand that it's a personal preference though, and the only thing that matters to others is the money, no matter how it comes into their hands. I don't like putting my results in anyone else's hands, which is probably why I was such a shitty employee for others until I finally made the leap of working for myself.
I do respect you as a person and a poster though, so I've done my best to stop raining on everyone's parade. I wish John's exercises were sturdy enough to withstand a little scrutiny, that's all. His blog today said that serious gamblers don't have time for academic debates which produce no "real winner," but I continue to believe that serious gamblers benefit from the exercise of their critical thinking skills no matter the end result. Like so many things in life, an obsession with results often blinds people to the ancillary benefits of personal growth on the way to those results, and that's why threads like this where so many people sound like mindless automatons in the hopes of placating today's "golden goose" offend my desire to scrutinize things in the hope of understanding them better.
Anyhow, you guys can get back to the "serious gambling" now. Best of luck to the shepherd as well as the sheep.
