<p>"Michael Binger, a 29-year-old from Atherton, Calif., with a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford, was wiped out in third, for $4.12 million. Gold called an all-in bet holding an unsuited three and four and made a straight on the turn."</p>
<p>He ended up with a $4.1 million goody bag to take home.</p>
<p>damn...4.1 million for third? man i'd take 123rd place and $10000 and be happy. i know you don't get 10000 for third but whatever.</p>
<p>I think he's gonna quit the PhD. </p>
<p>Why bother to deal with difficult stuff like advanced physics when you can make money that easily by playing poker. Yes, good acting or bluffing may be needed, but utimately, poker is a simple game based mostly on luck.</p>
<p>When are they gonna give $$$$$ to Chess or Go players?</p>
<p>"game based mostly on luck."</p>
<p>"make money that easily by playing poker"</p>
<p>These statements dont line up, if its mostly luck then no one would have the advantage needed to make money in the long run.</p>
<p>... yea that was a very baseless claim.</p>
<p>i'd say at least 75% of poker hands are decided solely on skill. (at the world series, at least). It's probably more, in fact.</p>
<p>Now you do have to VERY lucky to win WSOP but you also need HUGE skill so you can maximize the luck you do get.</p>
<p>One hand of poker might have a large element of luck, but over the thousands of hands a professional (or really amateur too) plays the law of large numbers kicks in and the overall career gain/loss is based almost solely on skill.</p>