[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting post. I've thought about this myself.

I do think any person (with reasonable intelligence) can be a winner if he applies himself and studies the game. Not every successful poker player needs to be a math major from MIT, or an expert in game theory and the like.

With all the accumulated poker knowledge now available in the form of books - plus the ability to play tens of thousands of hands online before ever risking any serious money - it is a more level playing field than ever for a new player to learn and succeed in the game. Even if they don't have a lot of innate ability.

I think natural talent, when discussing poker, consists primarily of a person's psychological makeup. The best players have the type of mental discipline that many of us do not have. I tend to think that stories of certain players magical abilities to read other players are a little overblown. Not that some players can't sense weakness better than others - but they don't have x-ray vision either. Mostly their success comes from a)knowing the proper play, and b)making the proper play. Many of us know a, but our emotions get in the way when it's time to follow up with b.

I do think that this type of discipline can be learned, however. Which is why I think any player CAN overcome a lack of natural talent, with enough work on his discipline and all the psychological aspects of poker.