Terror in Poker and Finance Part II

[Sweet]

Forgive me if I have erred. I am not financially educated, so perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems to me that a remark in "Poker and Finance Part II" by Dan Mezick is so profoundly incorrect, that any decent poker player should be deeply offended, and it certainly should not appear in an article associatied with the fine name of "2+2".

Apparently, "Sharpe ratio is basically the net reward divided by the volatility." Mr. Mezick then later goes on to conclude, "The player with the better Sharpe Ratio is the better player." It would appear that the thumpers of the weak-tight bible finally have their day! Nitty McSupertight is at home cheering, "Yes! I knew that I was the best player in my game, I almost almost always quit while I'm still ahead! Some guys are up way more than me over the last 5000 hours or so, but their results are so volatile... sometimes they lose 30 big bets in one session! I knew all this time I was the best player in the game; I earn way less than some guys, but I don't have to go through those big swings!"

OK, admittedly I have vented some of my frustration in that last tirade, but do you see my point? To clarify, suppose two of us have $10,000,000,000 bankrolls, and we're playing $1-$2 limit HE. Who is the better player? The one with the higher Sharpe Ratio, or the one with the higher EV?

There are clearly some important and points to be made, but claiming that "the player with the better Sharpe Ratio is the better player" is wildly incorrect, and only serves to champion the cause of the weak-tight masses.

Am I wrong?