I'm not really trying to start an argument, but people always have a feeling about their play style. As an in-progress teacher of mathematics, you'll hear people say they "suck at math" all the time, and while someone might not be good at it, I strongly believe that it's merely because they haven't cued in on something that helps them understand a topic. People, in general, have no problem saying that they suck at something, whether it's true or not. The issue isn't whether or not others think they suck, but how they feel about their own play. That's the ultimate criteria for being a student. If someone feels that they are really lacking in some aspect that many others seem to have gained some insight into, they may feel that they suck at the game. It's not a problem for someone to self-evaluate and that's what we need people to do. What the School of War isn't (or at least shouldn't be) designed to do is take someone that has a pretty firm grasp on the game join and pit themselves against a group of people that are certainly not on their level expecting to gain some deep insight or revelation that creates the perfect player. The SoW is all about and some tricks-of-the-trade.
After all, you may not remember, but Jacob was in one of earliest SoW games and by that point, he had already won about a dozen games and drawn in a considerable amount as well. So, I'm sorry if you felt offended by the comment, but let's not make it more of an issue than it really is.