[CallMeIshmael]

Didnt see your reply until today (odd note: I corrected my post (saying I needed to rank the GPAs) independently and at exactly the same time as you)

I have a problem with this...

[ QUOTE ]
And, if you were put into a contest with EVERYONE in the world, and made them all play poker with an XBox controller, I no longer think you'd be ranked that high. What about giving Phil Ivey a chance at playing poker with your controller, and see if he bests your winrate, for example. Just because no one has tried something before doesn't mean that they'd be ranked poorly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This presents a much larger loophole, IMO.

For example... lets take tennis.

Roger Federer is the current world #1, right? That means, on average, anyone who steps on a tennis court with RF is going to lose more often than they win.

BUT... that is VERY DIFFERENT than saying he is the most adept at tennis.

There is a VERY VERY GOOD chance that the best tennis player in the world today doesnt play tennis.

This kind of goes back to nature vs nurture.

Federer has both the genetic capability (nature) and proper environment (nurture... that is, he was given a tennis racquet and encouraged to develop his ability in tennis) to become the world #1.

I mean... if, hypothetically, roger federer broke his neck in an accident when he was 6, and never played, does that make andy roddick (or whomever is #2 right now) the best tennis player in the world?

There is a very good chance that there exists someone who is more genetically gifted to be a tennis player, but was simply never handed a raquet.


So.... you cant say, hand Phil Ivey an Xbox controller and compare winrates. Because, you are saying to me: there exists someone who is better than you at that skill (poker with gamepad), but he just hasnt gotten used to it. Because, if you say that, then you have to give everyone in the world the same shot (including preperation time)... and if this is the case, I doubt that any list in this thread is even close to accurate.