I suspect there is a law of diminishing returns with regard to the skill factor -
A complete novice would be at a severe disadvantage to anyone with some degree of experience (though they would still have a healthy chance of winning any given encounter, thanks purely to Lady Luck).
However, they would only be marginally worse off against a top player, many of whose wily skills might only prove useful in very particular (and relatively infrequent) scenarios.
Similarly, the top player versus an 'average' player would have an advantage, but only a small one.
I can't support the above assertions with any concrete evidence, but I notice that doesn't normally stop people around here.
I saw the face in your post. I get it. HOWmever For a lot of the "teasers" there are reams of statistical back up. For a lot of other assertions, yep, it's opinion. And speaking of opinion:
The only certainties are the probabilities. Nothing else is certain.
I've been in discussions as to what constitutes "BASIC STRATEGY."
Whose basic strategy;whose "BOOK;" whose "BIBLE;"
What was it before "Counting?" (BC) . What is it after "counting?"(AC). But then, whose "count?" Whose new count? Whose revised new count? Whose new strategy incorporated into one of those counts for a specifically run casino BJ game, that may only be offered for a month before it's cracked.
So instead of revisiting some older "Basic Strategy" within an older count method against casino offerings, all the knowledgeable AP's just wait for the casino that makes the mistake and opens itself to pickin by the "New" strategy.
Even the AP's can't agree, except on the probabilities. But hey even then, since we're doing all the math in base 10 against a 13 sequence, there just may be room for other interpertations. Likewise, over reliance on per centages and averages over infinity or in a too small sample cloud the issue.
Unless one takes the time to do the numbers oneself(a daunting task even with a computer) one is relying on others to have properly "set" the problem.
Observable. Defineable. Repeatable.
Numbers crunching fits the mandate. But what was once the law or acceptable, does not stay forever. Are all the people burning in hell for having eaten meat on Friday, now given a repreive, a pardon, or are they forgotten?
All the estemed, various scientific communities follow a herd mentality to aid the "publish or perish" peril. Yet, once every 50 years or so, someone breaks through with revolutionary thought which is really only THOUGHT.
But on the other side there is also regression, even using the scientific method, when one and sometimes more parameters are changed for whatever reason.
What was certain and agreed upon can be changed by a concensus of the "community," furthering uncertainty in the quest for the absolute certainty.
And if this is too muddled, or you don't believe it, I suggest you ask Pluto what it thinks.
