There's theory, and then there's reality.

I think we can all agree that the simulation that assumed 10 players of equal skill is really far from reality. We all know that we make $$ in poker from other people's 'mistakes'. Even those mistakes come in so many different flavours. A better, more realistic simuation would have to make some assumptions about each individual player's skills or skill profile, and even that is still insufficient. One's "skills" could vary day to day and even hand to hand, depending on so many factors. It would be very interesting to be able to list of the dimensions of 'poker skill' and then be able to use that to come up with a model to quantify skill in a way similar to, but certainly far more complex than, the way they define handicapping in golf.

Luck will even out in the long run, no question about that. And, I would say that one's "skills" should theoretically increase (probably to some actual maximum, bounded by some theoretical maximum) with time.

Some natural, very interesting questions are:

o How to you measure/quantify one's poker 'skills'? That is, by no means, a trivial question! There are many dimensions to poker skill! Getting your money in when you have "the best of it" is not a good description of poker 'skill'. Being able to determine WHEN you have the best of it is a better, albeit still limited, one. Let's not forget that you can still take down pots when you have the worst of it too!

o What are the skills unique to each 'game', table, etc? For example, you'd have to come up with separate models for limit, no-limit, tourny play etc. Each of these 'games' require a different set of skills, and you would therefore have to come up with a different model for how one would go about measuring and quantifying 'skill' for each.

o What's "the long run"? Interestingly, with the advent of online poker and multi-tabling etc., the answer to that question is very different than it was 10 years ago. I don't even know what the answer would have been 10 years ago, let alone today.

o Can someone be sufficiently unlucky in poker over the course of their entire life (assuming a minimum number of hands per week say) to have their above average skill wiped out by bad luck. My educated guess is no fargin' way!

o Even Sklansky admits that the Fundamental Theorem of Poker does not always apply (in a straight forward way) in multi-way pots. So, how do you even define other players 'mistakes' in the most general sense?

o I could go on and on with more thought provoking questions (at least they are to me), but I don't want to be accused of just trying to increase my WPP.

There must be some recognized poker literature out there that lays out proper models (defining all assumptions and their associated 'reasonableness') and uses solid statistical analysis to given useful proper insights into this skill versus luck thang!

I'd venture to say that it is far too simplistic to state that poker is x% skill and y% luck. And, even if you were going to state it that simplistically, there's NO WAY that it's 50-50.