OTOH, it's a given that in any group of fortune-tellers, someone will be right more than everyone else. Unless there are other rational-choice theorists with similar track records, this doesn't tell us much about the validity of rational-choice theory itself.

One of the things that made Warren Buffett's "The Superinvestors of Graham & Doddsville" so credible is that he listed a whole host of investors who all used the same strategy yet invested in different companies, and they all ended up beating the market by a large amount. It's not enough to look at what the leading practitioner in a field does, because he may be leading by luck. It's also not enough to look at a group of leading practitioners who all take the same actions, because luck might favor those actions and leave them all well-off. But if a group of leading practitioners all follow the same principles yet take different actions, and they all do well, there's probably something to those principles.

Same reason why you should never just trust Paul Graham - he could've gotten lucky with Viaweb and just been in the right place at the right time. However, when he articulates the same principles as Marc Andreesen and Paul Buchheit and Caterina Fake, all of whom have gotten rich under different circumstances in different time periods, there might be something to them.