[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is that a great point, though??? Okay, yes, if Ivey were the unluckiest person in the world, he'd perform poorly. So what? He's successful, so obviously he's not the unluckiest person in the world. How does that prove the implication that luck has everything to do with Ivey??? Doesn't make any sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you just restated my point.

"He's successful, so obviously he's not the unluckiest person in the world."

And I never said luck had EVERYTHING to do with Ivey. I said the most dominant player you could find would be the most skilled and most lucky. Is Ivey the most skilled and most lucky? I don't know but I bet he is ranking high in both areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

But look at Stu Ungar. (Maybe someone raised that point and you already responded, sorry.) He was a consistent tournament winner. From what I've read, had to do with innate talent (reading people, calculating odds, etc.) more than good cards/luck.

In other words, how lucky was he? We can mostly guess, though I suppose if you really wanted to investigate, his hands are probably recorded somewhere.

As a matter of fact, you could control for the luck factor, somewhat, couldn't you, if you wanted to do a formal study?