It seems to me that you're not considering the fact that skill encompasses more than getting it in when you're +EV. To give a different take on missjacki's example, say you're HU with the world's best great HU player (pick whomever you like). Stacks are exactly even and deep. You're given the option to play the very first hand for stacks with the cards set up so you're a 3:2 dog. Should you?
If we set aside the soft factor of being able to play the match against whomever, you probably should. Why? Because if you choose to play, your probability of beating him is less than 40%.
The skill element in this admittedly contrived example is being able to recognize which -EV option is less bad.
It also seems like you're not considering that luck takes different forms. For instance, when you call someone's all in pre- as a 3:2 or better favorite vs. his range, is it purely a matter of skill when he has the bottom or middle of that range but of bad luck when he has the top and you're behind?
Skill and luck co-exist in poker. In the example above, you got it in good vs his range (skill), but had the bad luck to run into the top of his range. Over the course of your poker career, if you're better than your opponents, you'll be a net winner. But luck will factor into when and how much you win. For instance, Antonio Esfandiari is an excellent player, but his total career winnings would be much less if he had run well in another event rather than One Drop.
What exactly does this mean? If winning a tournament legitimately requires not getting into substantial pots bad, how often do you think that will happen in sizable fields? Once in 1000 tournaments? 5000? More?
And assuming it will take multiple wins in this manner to leave no doubt as to your skill, how many tournaments will that take?
Also, what's your standard for no doubt? Let's say you "legitimately" win enough MTTs in a short enough time span to rate yourself as good. Unless you've done this at the highest levels, you can't legitimately tell yourself you're good fullstop, only that you're good relative to the levels you've played.
Good. Freaking. Grief. You're still putting words in my mouth that I'm not saying, here. Let's say a real life example happens close to that HU situation you described--I have a chance to double up against a genuinely superior player where I'm a slight dog--say, I have AQ or something against, for example, pocket 8s on his part. (That's the only type of scenario I can think of where a player better than me would shove on me in that spot and I'd have those odds.) What I apparently
still haven't gotten across to you is that those scenarios I cited before are not examples--they are
the specific set of conditions in which I would fold a technically +EV situation--I have more than 30M, it's early in the tournament, and I know I have him beat preflop by at least a little bit. If any one of those conditions is not met, I totally would go for it! The principles I've outlined flat out
do not apply in the examples you're using here.
As to your first question, if I'm unlucky enough to catch the teeth end of the guy's range and win, yes I won via luck, but I don't mind it there because I didn't get to that position on the basis of "maybe I'll get lucky"--more things happened that hand than me being lucky. If, on the other hand, villain has the derp-o end of his range and hits a 3-outer to beat me, he only won because he got lucky. If I hit a 3-outer to beat someone, then I'm the one who only won because he got lucky.
As to your second question...ffs, I
am willing to get into substantial pots bad...when my chip stack is in a place relative to the blind levels where I would feasibly
need to get in bad and hope to catch, AKA short stacked. What I
don't want to do is send my above average or big stack against an even bigger stack who is willing to make such a derpy and/or bullying play as shoving his table-leading stack all in.
Please, try to see my actual position this time instead of the position you seem to have already concluded beforehand that I have...
