[dkoleary]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
by implication the properly rolled guy is the better player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure how true this is. You would think a player like this perhaps has more discipline and is in fact not playing with scared money and can focus on making sound decisions. There are many more variables, however, that would translate to who the better player is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't think (most of the time) the guy playing with the last of his roll on the table is the better player.. I dunno, show me your reasoning so I can understand where you are coming from.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not saying that he is a better player. I am not saying that he is the worst player either. The post I was responding to indicated that the fact that he was short rolled meant that he was a worse player...for which I disagree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well assuming that experience = skill/understanding/knowledge of playing poker. And that through experience, a player would know not to be underrolled. I deduced that, if we knew nothing else of the two players except for the fact that one was playing with his roll on the table and the other was deeply rolled, it is most likely that the one with his roll on the table has less experience hence less skill/understanding/knowledge of playing poker, hence he is a worse player than the other.

You haven't really explained yourself when you stated:
"the fact that he was short rolled meant that he was a worse player...for which I disagree with."