I'm not talking about a compromise. I'm not just talking about being able to understand the other's argument well enough to make a rebuttal, but also trying too understand it (and their rebuttal).

You argument is simplistic and easy to refute. If you understand poker, football, or just about any other sport, the rebuttal is easy to get. If you understand how better players, despite giving themselves the best chance at a win, can still lose, the rebuttal is easy to get.

It's pretty clear you don't get this refutation, as you've constantly sputtered questions about my "problem with The Quiz" or my "problem with Mark." Neither has anything to do with it.

I'll concede that it's possible this counter-argument has been poorly expressed. It certainly has not been understood. Which is fine. I'd rather be right and misunderstood, than wrong and demonstrably so.