I think the 10K rule came from a researcher named Anders Ericsson not Malcom Gladwell, and I am pretty sure I read about this 10K hours idea long before Gladwell wrote a single book.

Other issue no one mentioned - it would take thousands of hours grinding to build a bankroll big enough to compete in games that other elite player are in.

Well-played.

It's nice to see the argument against summarised in cartoon form, for those struggling to understand peer-reviewed academic work.

You waited 16 days for an opening for a comeback? Sad. But I won't judge.

One interesting theory i have is; whether or not you are an "elite poker player" depends not on history, past, present or future, but how you play the next hand.

How you play the next hand whether horribly or god like determines how good you are at that moment.

Of course being a great poker player requires lots of off the table skills, money managment, health, routine. Which is all determined by making your next good decision. People who say "im the best" just have a ego that might negativley affect them.

Thank you.

I'm not sure I agree with the contention that "poker is more a knowledge game than an execution game."

I'll try to articulate my thoughts here - I have spent a lot more time playing chess than poker, so I tend to relate things to chess, but I think my considerations would apply to both games.

I'm about 2100 rated in chess, ie., a decent amateur player. What separates me from the pros? If you give us the same position, the pro will play it better than I will within the time available. In some positions this will be largely due to the pro's superior knowledge (he's seen the position, or similar positions, before and knows how to approach it). But in most cases it isn't - it's because the pro is more efficient at applying his mental resources to the problem. Yes, the pro has a larger "mental database" of positional knowledge to draw from, but he's also much faster and more efficient at drawing on his knowledge, running through the various possibilities and making a decision.

Similar to tennis - what separates the top players from the rest is not so much that their tennis-playing muscles are more developed or that they have more stamina - but that they have trained their minds to exert a greater level of control over their muscles, they are able to be much more precise and consistent with making the ball go where they want it to with the right spin etc.

I tend to think about mind-sports in a similar way - the knowledge is sort of like the "base material," i.e., the physical attributes like strength, speed, stamina, for a tennis player. What matters most for a tennis player is their ability to use their physical attributes to consistently and effectively execute the right shot at the right time. What matters most for a poker or chess-player to draw on their knowledge to consistently and effectively execute a decision-making algorithm.

So I think they are all primarily about execution, just that in mindsports it is the execution of a decision-making algorithm, rather than a series of muscle movements. At least this is how it seems to me. I'd be interested in hearing some alternative views.

Hi lkasigh:

I'm not a chess player and know little about it. But I have played a lot of poker and I've also played a lot of tennis, and when I say a lot of tennis this goes back over 50 years and includes many days when I spent all my time at the tennis courts.

And with this background, I can say the following with certainty. If you want to be a top tennis player, it's going to take many thousands of hours of practice. For instance, when I was a kid growing up in South Florida, I use to bring a box of tennis balls with me and always tried to spend at least 30 minutes a day doing nothing but hitting serves. So the 10,000 hour requirement to become an elite tennis player seems reasonable to me. But it doesn't mean if you put this type of time and effort in, plus a whole bunch of good coaching, you're going to be on the tour.

I can also say with certainty that there's no equivalent in poker. Yes, you don't become a top notch poker player overnight, and it will take some time and effort to get a good understanding of the game. But since you're not concerned about things like speed, timing, and coordination, all of which can take a long time and lots of practice to develop, the claim of 10,000 hours is silly. 500 to 1,000 hours seems to me to be much more reasonable, and it's consistent with my experience.

Best wishes,
Mason

Thanks for the reply Mason.

It don't doubt that it takes different lengths of time to master poker vs. tennis. However I guess my objection is more to your thesis that the reason for the difference is due to some fundamental difference in the nature of the game ("knowledge game" vs. "execution game").

They are both execution games, tennis is just harder.

Hi lkasigh:

Okay. But I would say that the execution factor in tennis is much, much, much harder than the execution factor in poker. In fact, even though I've been playing tennis for over 50 years, I still hit a lot just to work on my basic game and to get my timing down right.

On the other hand, I also feel that the knowledge component in poker is much harder than it is for tennis. But the bottom line is that it takes no where near the hours to become a top notch poker player than it takes to become a top notch tennis player as long as you have the ability to become top notch in one of these.

Best wishes,
Mason

So tennis players who become #1 should not bother? Because its hard

That's why mutt the Murray should get more credits.