Too much theories, no wonder investors’ need to hire advisors to help them out (I believe advisors give out lots of fake or wrong information). In addition, I believe investing is NOT a zero sum game and using a poker analogy is incorrect. Here are my thoughts:

Someone always win playing in the market and most people would pretty easily identify the individual. Many articles claim Mr.Buffett. Unfortunately, we never question what makes Mr. Buffett the winner in the first place. Mr. Buffett has a great average using cumulative return as a measurement. Look closely at the information you’ll find he doesn’t always beat the market. So what makes him a winner?

Poker analogy is incorrect because someone needs to be representing the house (which always win and I don’t believe is Mr. Buffett). I don’t play poker and don’t know the game too well. Please identified that player for me?

Finally, active investing will beat passive investing during a new bull market. This new bull market must include new tangible inventions (not financial innovation) that could help and improve society.