Re: Smart People
I agree with phzon (not just on this post, in general). However, it is worth considering the relation between positive and negative win rates. Certain rates of losing will drive players from the game. You might conjecture that there will always be replacements for them, but that seems like wishful thinking.
If you could arrange your games like Frank Wallace (author of Advanced Concepts of Poker) where you are the only big winner and the rates of losers are restrained to keep the game going, you could win many times what the worst player loses. But it's pretty hard to capture all the losses at a Poker table, and it's hard to keep the loss rates just at the point where people continue losing.
I think for most situations, it's hard to win consistenly more than the worst player who continues playing long-term loses. However good you are, you will have trouble keeping a game going in which you get all the money, and you will have trouble keeping other good players from poaching on your turf.
|