3 ms·
Being a complete nobody is not reflective of one's skill. That said, luck is the primary influence of outcome given a small enough time frame. It's also possi
by sejje 12y ago
Being a complete nobody is not reflective of one's skill.
That said, luck is the primary influence of outcome given a small enough time frame.
It's also possible to have your mistakes "fixed" by luck. Moneymaker was not better than Farha, I'll give you that.
- lasermike026 12y agoWatching Moneymaker win and then a series of others unknowns win convinced me that poker is a game of luck. Why are real rounders not winning?
- panorama 12y agoThey are. Overwhelmingly, in fact. You are almost certainly looking at a ridiculously small sample (probably just WSOP Main Events, of which the past several have had legitimately skilled winners).