Ah, I see your point now.

I think I will agree with it, too, and say that the proper way to deal with the problem is to specify boundary conditions (aka assumptions aka limiting cases) under which the statement is strictly true, and then point out that some of these boundary conditions can be breached (and so result in different outcomes or conclusions).

In my case, if this were a considered statement about games of chance (and not a throwaway remark), I should have mentioned that proper statistical analysis can, and sometimes does, lead to the turning of the tables and finding specific ways of betting which have positive expected value. The classic case, I think, is MIT kids in Las Vegas, there's even a book about it.