How My Son's Insight May Have Saved Poker

[E.Z.]

i agree skallagrim..

any aggressive Pro could sit down at a full ring NL game (small stakes $50) and simply play position and make reads without looking at his cards.

just bluffing and betting the pot on the flop and firing through when scared cards hit. he would win money more than half the these short sessions all the while seldom (if ever) going to a showdown.

last year a guy wrote how he played in a WSOP event at the same table as gavin smith. he said everyone was so afraid of gavin early in the tourney that he took down 9 str8 pots with pre-flop raises.

gavin would be very lucky to have the best starting hand out of 10 players more than 2 or 3 times in those hands. but the lucky suckers that had better hands folded..... i wonder why?? they had the best chance to win?

[ozziepat]

One issue with the skill argument is that skill in NLE, for example, is relative - even, maybe especially, over the long run. That only stops being true at the very highest levels of the game and players. Joe Blow can suck in one set of circumstances and excel in another. Is he skilled? Obviously not if it is some absolute factor in his play.

Blackjack is a game of knowledge (given sufficiently frequent shuffles). Best play is governed by known odds. You know them or you don't. Bad basis for "skill" argument.

So, what is "skill" anyway? Can you measure it? Not by winnings, for most players. Perhaps the most that can be said for consistent winners is that they are better at picking their contest conditions, an option not available in most contests, which again is a knowledge exercise.