Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice post, but I think the lack of variance in chess and tennis makes the Kasparov/Federer analogies fairly meaningless. I think that's the real reason why there has never, and probably will never be a well-defined "best player" in poker.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree, because I think Brandon is focusing on skill sets rather than results. While it's true that it's impossible for someone to show the session-by-session or tournament-by-tournament dominance that Federer, Woods, and Kasparov show(ed) in their games, it is not impossible for someone to similarly command the full set of poker skills.
[/ QUOTE ]
But if the command of those poker skills can not be measured in a result over time then there is no way of knowing they exist. If Federer did not dominate we could not deduce his skill is high even if it is possible he had the skill.
|