If a player of a game says that the rules should be fixed, shouldn't the fact that he happens to be the _best_ player make him more credible rather than less so?
I should have elaborated further. I keep seeing the GP's implication that it's hypocritical of Warren Buffet to suggest changes to the rules when he has already won a lot of money. I think this argument is a red herring, and the reason that it comes up so often is that he is in an enviable position as the "winner" of the game.
It's perfectly legitimate to advocate for changes to the rules of a game even while playing under the current rules. By way of analogy, a friend wanted to win an honorable mention on some website for his work, but he was annoyed that the last step in judging submissions was a stupid online survey with no restriction on multiple submissions. He emailed the organizers to tell them that the form was meaningless, but when they didn't change the form, he used curl a few thousand times to win. (The runner-up also clearly voted far more than was possible by hand). Optimizing for broken rules can be unfortunate but not necessarily unethical.
I just think Mr. Buffet's policy recommendations should be debated on its real flaws (like the article points out) rather than on how well he plays under the current rules.
If he's that good a game player, he's probably playing a game when he says these things.