Brunson ' quote about Sklansky

[Dov]

You can't measure poker skill in one hand.

[Dov]

I think you are mistaken here.

The score in poker is kept in dollars. That makes dollars a very reasonable measure of overall performance.

[sweetjazz]

So if Doyle Brunson couldn't find anyone to play in a game above 10/20 limits because people were scared to play him, then he would become just a mediocre player?

And he would also be a mediocre player if he decided (for whatever reason) that he would rather school people in 10/20 instead of playing 4000/8000 or whatever limits he plays.

I agree that money is a major factor in determining how well a poker player plays, but it's not the only factor. Football success is measured in wins, but just because a high school team goes undefeated does not make them a better team than the New York Giants.

And unless Doyle Brunson and David Sklansky have played in a statistically significant number of similar games (identical limits, equal quality of opposition, equal bankrolls), then their poker playing is incomparable. And thus any opinion as to who is better would have to rely on subjective opinions (such as "the more money a player makes, the better he is" or "the one who knows more theory and understands why he is winning better is the better player").

You are certainly welcome to judge a poker player by how much money he makes. It's an objective criterion. Your decision to apply that criterion (which precisely answers the question "Who makes more money?") to a different question (namely "Who is the better player?") is subjective.

[Ilovephysics]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are mistaken here.
The score in poker is kept in dollars. That makes dollars a very reasonable measure of overall performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tough call. It's like comparing Montana to Jerry Rice... or Pedro Martinez to A-Rod.

They may play the same sport, but one stat clearly isn't a fair way to assess anything if they really don't play the same game/position/etc. A-Rod may be 3 for 26 against Pedro since 1999, but that doesn't mean I want Pedro on my fantasy team before A-Rod... but if I had to choose whether I thought A-Rod would go 1 for 3 against Pedro any given game (knowing Pedro could walk A-Rod and bail himself out of a tough spot), I'd go with Pedro limiting A-Rod to 0 for 2, etc...

Such as with this choice. I believe the sound player wins more over the long run. But, just like in Super Bowls, there is that 'it' factor that sometimes you can't put down on paper...