Question for Sklansky

In another thread, Mason recently quoted an excerpt from the forward of your upcoming book: "Yet some people excel at tournament poker. This is not luck. These are players who have a good understanding of what the proper strategy adjustments are, and when they come into play. It is not a coincidence that the same players make it to the final table far more than their fair share."


Is the basis for your claim that certain players make it to the final table "far more than their fair share" (given that you state that "This is not luck," I'm assuming you mean even after being adjusted for normal random distribution effects) impressionistic or empirical? A while back I reviewed the results for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 WSOP NL championship events. I found that the proportion of participants who made the money in 1999 or 2000 who also made the money the following year was equivalent (actually, slightly lower) to that of the overall field. And the proportion of final table participants was considerably lower (this is of much less statistical significance given the sample size, but still interesting). Even as one with a healthy respect for variance, I found these results somewhat surprising, especially given the amount of "dead money" reputed to be in the Championship Event.

I think all you have to do is look at the results of the million dollar tournament in L.A. recently. Look at the pictures in the back of the magazines and see the familiar faces.


If only these guys knew how much of celebraties they are, and only if they knew how to react when star-struck fans like me stare at them.

I'm not going to confirm or deny what S&M have said. But three tournaments is not even close to enough of a sample to base any opinion on any more than three sessions can tell you if you're a winning or losing poker player.