I have developed a theory. It probably won’t increase your profits, but it might help you understand the game…or at least show insight as to how I understand the game. Let me know if you agree.
Theory: The experience of a highly skilled poker player is equivalent to the experience of a moderately skilled player of any given sport.
Say I’m good, not great, at basketball. I go to make my shot and it may or may not go in the hoop. Conversely, if I was Kobe, I would almost certainly score. The less skilled I am, the more I rely on luck to cover my inconsistency. If I was Kobe–nay, better than Kobe–I would never need luck. The whole of my career would be nothing but net.
I’m saying poker is the same, only it hits a wall. If I am a bad card player, I require ample luck to make up for it. If I am moderate, I need less luck. If I possess flawless poker ability, I still require some luck to win any given hand.
My theory compares experiences, not performance. This is completely independent from the skill of your opponent.
Sorry if this post seems a little stream of consious and poorly worded. I haven’t really fleshed this out. So what do you think? Is luck as used in sports at all like the luck used in poker? Is it downshifted? Am I crazy?
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 25th, 2009 at 11:12 pm and is filed under Rants & Ravings. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.