GTO Poker Theories - Absolute vs Relative Success
The greatest successes are always influenced by luck, but the relative successes are due to hard work. Is that true in life and poker?
One of the real gifts poker has given me is that it has been a great jumping off point to learn things from other disciplines like economics, AI, psychology and Game Theory. So here is a series of articles where I bring some of the most interesting things I have learned from other subjects outside of poker which are applicable in this game we know and love.
It is undeniable in life that luck plays a massive role in how things turn out. You could be the smartest person in the world but if you are born into poverty your options will be limited. You could be a mediocre person born into a rich family and achieve great things. Despite this we know that hard work and determination also play a part. How do we balance these two seemingly competing truths?
Author James Clear makes a useful distinction here. Absolute Success vs Relative Success. Absolute Success is about your level of success compared to everyone else in the world. Relative Success is your level of success compared to your peer group. You might be the only person in your family who went to university, which is an example of relative success. That might make you feel good until you compare yourself to gazillionaire Elon Musk, which is an example of absolute success.
Clear argues that the most extreme cases of absolute success are always determined by luck, but relative success rarely is. He quotes Nassim Taleb who said “Mild success can be explainable by skills and labour. Wild success is attributable to variance.”
Entrepreneurs like Elon Musk are outliers and clearly a huge element of luck went along with the obvious talents he brought to the table. By contrast if you make a success with a local chain of shoe stores, that is probably more down to hard work and grit.
Compare yourself to the regs not the Main Event winners
I've written a few poker books. It would be foolish for me to compare myself to Stephen King who has sold millions upon millions of copies of his books worldwide. That is absolute success. I do know, however, that my books have sold similar amounts to some of the current crop of poker authors. That is relative success.
Poker tournaments are the most obvious example of this dichotomy. Nobody should compare themselves to Jamie Gold, who won the biggest single tournament prize in poker history. That is an extreme example of success and certainly an example of absolute success where luck played the defining part.
You should not judge your career based on how you perform in a once-a-year shot at the WSOP Main Event. You should, however, judge yourself on how you perform over a large sample in your regular bread and butter games. How you perform in, for example, your regular $22 MTTs over a year is much more within your control and an example of relative success. You are comparing yourself to your peers, the other regulars, in those games, not with one dude who won the WSOP Main Event,
Hard work still matters
None of this should be a surprise to you, it's what we talk about in poker all the time. Judge yourself on a large sample size in your regular games or an annual graph, not a single shot in one game.
David Lappin once said that if you remove the three biggest wins from a live poker player's Hendon Mob, you have a better reflection of their career. Take Jamie Gold's biggest score away and you have probably got a losing player.
It would be a mistake to look at the concept of absolute success and use it as an excuse not to try, arguing the deck is stacked against you. I think the takeaway is that hard work matters more than ever, however you should be judging the outcome of hard work by your peers and not he outliers who have made it to the very top.
What theories from outside of poker have helped your game? Let us know in the comments.
Related articles
