[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if they are not around for the long term (which is the lifetime of poker, not the player) how can you know if they would be a long term winner. Also, in order to be a long term winner you would need to consider every hand of poker that has ever been played which is in the trillions (probably more but I'm not sure what comes after trillions). What hands a player plays in their lifetime is still only a short term sample and therefore you can't say that someone is a long term winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

This (particularly the bolded part) is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not incorrect until somebody proves why it's incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]


Partially because you're the only one who thinks that's what "long term" means, and partially because you're the only one who is unwilling to accept that anything with probability <1 can be called "true." If you want to redefine language usage, fine, but don't expect anyone to think you're making any sense.