[holyfield5]

[ QUOTE ]
"that miniscule amount of favorable luck isnt making someone a top pro who doesnt have the skill."

Nobody said otherwise. The argument is simply that the most highly successful "name" pros are more likely to have been lucky than unlucky. Really, what is more likely, that Phil Ivey has been 3 standard deviations to the lucky side of the curve, or 3 standard deviations to the unlucky side?

And being up 52k is inconsequential? Do I give a [censored] if the percentage is close to 50% if I'm down 52k betting $1 a hand? If this was disguised as a game of poker, would the fanboys not be certain that the +52k guy was destroying the -52k guy due to his greater skill? Maybe not you, but many others would certainly say that being up 52k would be conclusive evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

the point is it doesnt matter if he was on the "lucky" or "unlucky" side this is a game of skill, he would still be phil ivey.

no no true poker player would think anything if someone was up 52k over a billion flips.......ever hear players say variance?

poker isnt about black and white 50% flips, its about putting people on correct ranges of hands and applying your equity and making decisions.

that would be roughly equivalent of flipping a coin(50/50) but each time you win you get 1.2$ and each time you lose they get 1$(even if the other guy is lucky you still win, even if you are unlucky you still win as long as you flip enough). you do that you will profit over the long run everytime, if your decisions net you 1.4$ to 1$ if you lose you will profit even more(better player)