"PLAIN STUPID"—A Reader’s Criticism & My Response

In the 1970s, a young mathematician named Bill Benter walked into Las Vegas, determined to do the impossible—beat the house.

The casino industry is built on one undeniable truth: The house always wins. Every game—roulette, blackjack, poker—favors the casino over time. Most gamblers believe luck is their only edge.

But Benter saw something different.

He wasn’t interested in rolling dice or betting on red or black. He knew that random bets lead to random results—and the only way to win consistently was to build a strategy based on probability, conviction, and discipline.

His game of choice? Horse racing.

A game where most bettors were playing blind, chasing long shots and gut feelings. But Benter? He spent years building an advanced statistical model—one that could calculate which bets had the highest expected value over time.

And yet… in his first year, he lost everything.

But instead of quitting, Benter refined his strategy, sized his bets correctly, and eliminated risk where he could.

By concentrating on the highest-probability bets and de-risking when ahead, he turned $150 into nearly $1 billion over the next 30 years.

Did he win every bet? No.

Did he ever go all-in on a single race? Never. Did he trust his system even when things weren’t going his way? Absolutely.

I tell you this because his story mirrors what I do here.

A few days ago, I received an email from a reader with strong criticism of my latest trade. And I think it’s worth addressing—not just for him, but for everyone.

The Reader’s Email: