As someone who has spent a good deal of time playing poker, I totally agree that this is a glaring editorial oversight.
Yet when phrased this way, it reminds me of "I'd rather be lucky than good" - something I've heard players say when criticized after winning in spite of poor play.
Sometimes this is sarcasm, but sometimes not.
There are in fact some folks who approach poker with a sort of chaos or joker mentality, and many who gain great satisfaction from winning by knowingly playing against and defying the odds - especially when the statistical aberrance is at the expense of another player who played the "right" way and lost all their money as a result.
For others, I think the saying is just a recognition of the supreme influence of variance in a poker player's lifetime success, a tacit admission that knowledge and skill alone are never enough.
Yet when phrased this way, it reminds me of "I'd rather be lucky than good" - something I've heard players say when criticized after winning in spite of poor play.
Sometimes this is sarcasm, but sometimes not.
There are in fact some folks who approach poker with a sort of chaos or joker mentality, and many who gain great satisfaction from winning by knowingly playing against and defying the odds - especially when the statistical aberrance is at the expense of another player who played the "right" way and lost all their money as a result.
For others, I think the saying is just a recognition of the supreme influence of variance in a poker player's lifetime success, a tacit admission that knowledge and skill alone are never enough.