Re: Irrespective of Mr. Sklansky\'s attitude, his key point is correct:
 

[ QUOTE ]

However, the difference between the greatest chess player and the median chess player is far, far greater in terms of SD than the difference between the greatest poker player and the median poker player.

In otherwords, whereever I rank on the poker continuum, call it the Xth percentile.. the difference between the Xth percentile player and the world's greatest in poker is far lesser than the difference between the Xth percentile player and the world's greatest chess player, measured in terms of SD.

I hope that makes sense, because I know full well the idea I'm trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between the best chess player and the 100th best player is greater the the difference between the best poker player and a marginal loser.

Re: Irrespective of Mr. Sklansky\'s attitude, his key point is correct:
 

Not even close, you have to differentiate between skill and results. Which are you talking about?

Re: Irrespective of Mr. Sklansky\'s attitude, his key point is correct:
 

thought it was a joke post until I read about the entire thing and realised Strassa was being serious.

Re: Several Hotshots Supposedly Broke Or In Debt
 

When Jason Strasser becomes a man, he will put away childish things, especially this rude, misinformed way of writing. There are a large number of young poker players who are winning tournaments and surreal sums of money. It is natural to be conceited and intellectually isolated, like Strasser. Calling Sklansky an underacheiver marks him.

Sklansky is the leading theorist in poker. Since his books, the field has gotten a whole lot tougher and he is one of the reasons. I've seen Sklanskly win a tournament on TV, playing against top talent. Success is self-defined. Sklansky has been a huge success for a very long time and we know this will continue.

Many poker players save up money, many go broke. It is often because of leaks rather than poker: dice, sports, coke, alcohol, women, and self-importance.

Remember High School English. Pride causes the fall. This year's hot shots come and go and Las Vegas doesn't even pretend to care.

If you were to bet on who is likely to go broke, Sklansky or Strasser, what price would you lay?

Re: Irrespective of Mr. Sklansky\'s attitude, his key point is correct:
 

The difference between poker and chess, or any other game, is that poker never ends. Whatever edge you have, however small, you exploit ad infinitum. And that edge is not limited to a better theoretical understanding of the game's structure. Poker windfalls are probably more often associated with exploiting a defect in charcter of some sort rather than a deficiency in someone's theoretical understanding of the game, and in an endless series of contests there are innumerable opportunities for such defects to manifest.

Re: Several Hotshots Supposedly Broke Or In Debt
 

[ QUOTE ]
Underachieving is underrated.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT. Stu Ungar, Jack Strauss, Sailor Roberts and Joey Hawthorne wouldn't agree, though. At least they wouldn't if they weren't dead, but hey, they hit the heights, didn't they?

Re: Several Hotshots Supposedly Broke Or In Debt
 

lol strasser isn't going broke with his ballin' job on wall street...

Re: Irrespective of Mr. Sklansky\'s attitude, his key point is correct:
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No self-bias here. I don't profess that there is an equal skill level, but rather that the difference is not as big as the pros make it out to be. They make it sound like they got where they are because they have super-human powers.

I will go on record and say the difference in skill level between the best NL Holdem player and myself is far smaller than the difference between the best player at any sport and a player who has achieved an equivalent modest success level as myself.

The pro players propogate a myth because that myth puts money in their pocket. They make you think the ability to push all-in and get called by a gutshot or the ability to muck KK on an A-x-x board is something only pros can do.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such a thing as "more skill" in one game of skill v. another, there are only different lengths of convergence. A 3 standard deviation chess player will beat a 2 standard deviation chess player close to 100% of the time. But a 3 standard deviation poker player will beat a 2 standard deviation poker player just as often -- you just have to make the match longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, the difference between the greatest chess player and the median chess player is far, far greater in terms of SD than the difference between the greatest poker player and the median poker player.

In otherwords, whereever I rank on the poker continuum, call it the Xth percentile.. the difference between the Xth percentile player and the world's greatest in poker is far lesser than the difference between the Xth percentile player and the world's greatest chess player, measured in terms of SD.

I hope that makes sense, because I know full well the idea I'm trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't, because what you're saying is that the distribution of skill in chess has a higher kurtosis (fatter tails relative to normal distribution) than the distribution of skill in poker (either that or that there are far, far more chess players than there are poker players). But I don't think that's what you mean.

IMO, the difference is that skill in chess can be approximately represented with a numerical skill. In other words, if A is better than B by a certain amount and B is better than C by a certain amount, then we can figure out how much A is better than C. But this sort of transitive relationship doesn't hold in poker, which is another way of saying poker skill cannot be represented on a numerical scale. Even the good players can't always adjust to different environments, partly because by the time we have enough information on which to act, it's too late. So the most successful players are often the ones who have been lucky, not necessarily in terms of cards, but in terms of your opponents' styles relative to your own. The truly great players are the ones who can figure out the environment with little information, adjust and/or alter the environment as to favor their own style, and/or play in a naturally unexploitable way. But against a field of decent-to-good players, being lucky (in terms of style compatibility) is far, far more important than being truly great because being truly great merely allows you to adopt the style that the lucky guy already has, once you figure out how everyone else plays. Ultimately, players with a bias towards rock win more when the field has a bias towards scissors. In other words, variance in short-to-medium term EV among decent-to-good players due more to style compatibility against the field than true difference in skill.

Re: Several Hotshots Supposedly Broke Or In Debt
 

[ QUOTE ]
re: strassa,

Jesus I gotta read NVG more.

Regardless of how David acts on twoplustwo or at the tables though, it's pretty ironic that you call Sklansky 'underachieving' in a post on his (highly successful) poker discussion website.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gild.

To the best of my knowledge, David doesn't own any of this site, or of the publishing company. (and also it could VERY easily be argued that despite this site's growth, it's exactly underachieving given the money that it could have generated).

Re: Several Hotshots Supposedly Broke Or In Debt
 

[ QUOTE ]
When Jason Strasser becomes a man, he will put away childish things, especially this rude, misinformed way of writing. There are a large number of young poker players who are winning tournaments and surreal sums of money. It is natural to be conceited and intellectually isolated, like Strasser. Calling Sklansky an underacheiver marks him.

[/ QUOTE ]
But when it comes to a post on Gary Carson's insults:

[ QUOTE ]

We need some controversial writers to keep the discussion flowing.


[/ QUOTE ]