The Theory of Poker can be taught. The Art of Poker cannot.

[collegeplayer1]

opinions?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Depends on what you mean by the "art" of poker. If by "art" you mean tacit knowledge, I disagree. Tacit knowledge is harder to teach than explicit knowledge, and takes a much more facile mind to grasp, but I think it can be taught.

[ThePopinjay]

The Theory of Bullshit can be taught. The Art of Bullshit cannot.

[thomastem]

Keeping it simple, the math part of the game can be taught, profiling opponents can be (FBI TRAINS new recruits) taught etc.

The only part that isn't taught is your personality and how you implement it in your game style. For example my critters use more misdirection and deception than a Klingon would in battle.

[STLantny]

I thinks whats you means by the art of poker, is creativity with your game. THAT can not, more or less, as you people would say, "taught".

[SmileyEH]

The art of useless posting has apparently been mastered...

-SmileyEH

[Scotch78]

Assuming one player plays with artistry and another doesn't, it follows that there is a difference between their playing styles/techniques/strategies. If that difference is perceptible (large enough to be noticed) then it is identifiable and explainable, and thus teachable/learnable. Here's the catch though, everything is now learnable, so long as someone can already do it.

Scott

[STLantny]

how bout someone who is double-jointed?

[Boopotts]

My opinion is that there is substantually less art in poker than most people would assume.

[Scotch78]

Not sure about the physiognomy of double-jointedness, so can't really answer for you. However, under this argument things like coordination and athletic ability are theoretically learnable.

Scott