[A_C_Slater]

[ 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 ]


Just 2 years ago no one really had any idea who the best online NLHE players were. But now some railtard could at least make a top 10 list of online players due to all the tracking sites. Of course, live there is really no way to determine since people can lie about winrates and not enough hands are played before a game will break down.