It's funny how we went from countings a scam to the MIT team, but here's my opinion:
I haven't read too much into the MIT team or it's leaders, or the people involved. I appreciate all the important ideas and info that they brought to light over the years, but personally I don't care how much, how little, how good, or what they're doing with the life now. As long as they are all healthy and doing well, thats all that matters. If their willing to share stories and helpful tidbits, thats always welcome too.
I think the entire point is completely missed. The number of zeros in their winning is based on the their unit.
Many guys here have made $10,000 in a year or even $25,000 in a year playing $25 units. Now change that unit to $100, $250, or even $500 and now the yearly win rate is significant.
Consider that guy playing $25 units who can now play $100 units because some investor is backing him:
at 10k per year win rate @ $25u = 400u
which becomes 40k if you play with a $100u
a 25k winner at $25u is = to 1000u
which becomes $100k winner at $100units.
Throw in a BP at $500 units flat betting, if he's up 400u at the end of 1 year thats $200,000.
Throw together a few BP's, multiple stores at a time, a bunch of excellent players at $50-$100 units, along with a bunch of minimum bet play all players and combined it totals a big number.
No doubt it takes more work then my simple example, but the number of zeros is all relative to the unit size and total BR.
One more thought, at a 3% win rate it takes $35 million dollars in action to win $1 million, ok so they are "that good" and won at a 5% win rate, so they still bet $20 million dollars to win 1 million.
It still comes down to one thing, to win big means you need to be able to bet big.
BJC