Interesting take on poker pros

[Joey Joe Joe]

"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.