[bush-bby]

Those two things, skill and chance, are not mutually exclusive characteristics. My point is more so that poker should not be treated as if all the skill in the world can account for all the bad luck in the world. I mean there’s a reason there’s no equivalent of the patriots in professional poker. No one is going to win every single game every single time. And I think that forgetting that in the games portrayal is moderately dangerous. Because it is a game played with money. Sure you can mitigate your risk of loss with skill, but it’s never 100% controllable, and that should be acknowledged with more weight in my opinion.

[kevinventullo]

I think that is exactly the article’s point: even with perfect play, you can lose hands or even tournaments. But over time, it is a statistical inevitability that you will win on average.

That is an important life lesson! If you’re doing a startup, you might execute perfectly and just hit a run of bad luck and have to give up on that idea. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try again!

[quequeque]

I would say there is no equivalent of the patriots as there are far fewer teams in the NFL, a more suitable comparison would be comparing the tournament-style WSOP to PGA(golf) majors, where in the past 3 years (11 majors) there have been 10 unique champions. Almost all sports games have some element of chance where the better team does not always win, the NCAA basketball tournament is another good example of this, No one is going to win every single game every single time.

[kelnos]

> My point is more so that poker should not be treated as if all the skill in the world can account for all the bad luck in the world.

I don't think anyone is arguing that?

But regardless, in poker you can still win money even if you have bad luck and draw bad cards every single hand. Just as you can still lose money even if you have great luck and draw great cards every single hand.

I think the point is that yes, there is an element of chance, but there's an element of skill beyond just memorizing odds and probabilities. Most people probably do have a better chance of winning more money if they are lucky and end up with better cards more of the time, but that's not always a reliable predictor of success.

[philwelch]

Most of the human condition has an element of chance to it. Games like chess are extremely unusual in that respect.

[raldi]

The reason there’s no equivalent to an NFL team in poker is that an NFL team plays 19 games a year and there are only a couple dozen competing at all.

If the world of professional poker only involved a couple dozen players and they only played 19 hands a year, you would absolutely see dynasties and near-perfect “seasons”.

[floxy]

>no equivalent of the patriots in professional poker

Daniel Negreanu?

[kelnos]

Who?

I'm being flippant here for a reason. I don't care at all about football, and can't remember the last time I've even seen the Super Bowl (or even have notice who was playing). My eyes glaze over if I'm with friends and they start talking about football. But I've heard of the Patriots. Hell, I even know the name of their head coach.

I'm an on-and-off recreational home/casino poker player, but I've never heard of Daniel Negreanu. Professional poker just hasn't achieved popular culture penetration to the degree that football has.

[schwartzworld]

It wouldn't take following poker much to learn who he is. Poker doesn't have regional teams or Superfans like football, but it definitely has stars. Just because you don't know who they are doesn't mean they aren't.

I couldn't name anyone on the Patriots, and I can definitely name more poker pros than I can football players. Doesn't mean anything.