[Marlow]

I woke up this morning thinking about the Big Dance. It occured to me that Greg Raymer could very well still be in it, though I thought the chances were remote. Not because Greg's not a fantastic player (of course he is), but just because it seemed so totally improbable.

When I saw this morning that he's got the big stack, I fell off my chair. What an incredible accomplishment...

Anyway, I've been thinking about natural ability and ability gained from experience and study. I think that anyone at his level needs lots of both, but some people seem to have more natural ability then others. I guess that I think of Greg as someone with great natural skills, but not good enough to rocket to the top without years of study.

Now I really don't know all that much about the folks at the top. But I do know that I read over and over that the top pros were winners almost immediately. Thay they crushed people with greater expereince in their second and third outings. This is depressing to me as I'd like to think that I could get to that level if I wanted to. Well, Greg is there and it didn't happen overnight.

I'd be interested to hear people here weigh in on the "nature vs. nuture" debate about poker. Can any person be a winner? What does a natural talent have that an average player does not?

Marlow
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]