Dr. Al, the "ruthless meritocracy"

[ChicagoTroy]

IIRC, you quoted someone in the first 2+2 Magazine article about this phrase, and it actually rang a little false to me. I would think of chess or martial arts being that way, but not poker.

Poker is even less fair than a meritocracy. Bad players can be seduced into thinking they are good, or that they have a long term positive expectation. With the cyclical rewards being thrown in, you have the potential of addiction, too.

I'm not exactly disagreeing with the general description, but I think the game is a little more "cruel" to those who are lucky for a little while. An amateur boxer wouldn't get lucky a few times and think he could take out Bernard Hopkins, but a crappy poker player might sit in a very serious game if he ran lucky for few months.

I'm wondering if I'm missing something in the intent of the person who coined the phrase.

[SomethingClever]

In the long run, that phrase would seem to be 100% accurate.

But I see your point. Interesting boxing analogy.