> Stanford is one of the major contributors to
> the literature and the business ... he is the first to admit that he is not a
> professional player, and I don't think he claims that he ever was.

He apparenly feels qualified to voice an opinion on this issue. And as such, I still feel compelled to at least consider his opinion; one I still respect.

> But Wong's got nothing to do with this.

Well, he does. He apparently is vouching for Mr. Blackwood's opinion.

> The point is that Blackwood's review of the MIT
> book is way off the mark. Furthermore, I
> don't hear many pros disagreeing with me on
> this one, so what does that tell you?

It tells me Wong and Blackwood may be wrong; or that the working pros may be to busy knocking off the El Cortez to care about this post.

Are you telling me that the book is not that far off the mark; maybe even on the mark?

SR