You all seem to be doing fine offering both sides of the argument, so I have little to add, but one thing jumped out at me.
I was hoping you could clarify this statement. You said,
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Sai Sai" <gofastnismo@...> wrote:
The math doesn't always work and there have been pros that have busted.
Are you offering the fact that pros have busted as proof the math doesn't work? Or did you mean something else?
The reason I ask is the math says that most pros will make money and some will bust out. If some pros have busted out, that would be an argument for the math working, not one against it. Your statement seems to contradict itself, but I may have misunderstood you.
If all pros won all the time, then I'd question the math. If no pros one at all, I'd question the math. If most win and some lose, I see all things transpiring correctly.
If probability tell us there is a 99% chance of success, it's no big surprise when one in a hundred takes the worst of it.
~FK
P.S. I calculated the chance of succeeding as a progressive pro back in the day closer to 96%. In contrast, small business ownership has around a 15% success rate. Both require startup capital.
