|
. |
|
he Guardian Poker Column |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Victoria
Coren |
Tues 29 Nov 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do you find the best player in the
world?
|
There's no
flawless way to find poker's number one and that's just the way I like
it
One of the
experiments from the International Federation of Poker is "duplicate". It works
on the same principle as duplicate bridge: the deck is pre-set to provide
identical hands at different tables. Each player is awarded points against
other players with the same cards, in the hope of measuring "the skill of the
play" rather than "the luck of the deal". |
|
|
Of course, this still has its flaws. Your
opponent might shove with an underpair and a rival opponent's might not;
doesn't mean you've played better. If he hits a set, you've still got unlucky;
if he doesn't, you've still got lucky. Similar problem with duplicate bridge:
if a queen is oddly placed, a dodgy finesse will triumph over better play.
There is no flawless way to find "the best poker player in the world".
Biggest money winner? His losses aren't recorded. Most final-table appearances?
He played more tournaments than others. Toughest event? Luck is always a factor
in any single game. Series of tournaments? Too restricted to those who can be
in the right country at the right time for the right period. Play it online?
That's a different discipline.
I rather like the impossibility of
naming anyone "best". The ensuing, unceasing argument is so human. Personally,
I try to duck out of that arm-wrestle for sanity's sake. We're all competitive,
but I aim quietly for two things: first, to survive the game; second, to make a
profit. Everything else is icing sugar.
I remember the wise words of
Richard Jessup: "For every number one man there is a number two man, and
because of this a man cannot retreat from life. The difference is that the
number one man is a machine and the Cincinnati Kid is not, and was not, and
never will be a machine."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. |
|
|