Since you asked for an opinion I'll chime in. I have no experience with publishing houses and I did once self publish - sold two books, one to my aunt and one to my mom ha ha! I think the potential money to be made could be greater self publishing, and I have heard over and over that when you go with a publisher, you are going to have to do the bulk of the marketing anyway. If I choose to self publish then I will be hunting for a good editor because you can't just throw away good publishing practices just because you're free from the constraints of traditional publishing.
The advantage of going traditional is that they have a ton of experience and knowledge of how to get the book ready and how to get it out there, plus they will be able to get it into major bookstores. If you work alone, you have to do ALL that footwork yourself. The real question I think is this: Will you make more money from self publishing or traditional when you know they will be taking a huge cut of the profits from your book. Is the potential of self publishing and marketing greater than if you allow someone else to have authority in your editing process that then takes a huge cut of your money?
I'm inclined to think that self publishing is the better way to go as long as you can find appropriate markets for your work. But I would still like to see a major house on the spine of my novel as it sits on the shelf at Barnes and Noble. I know I'm vain :-)