In 2009, a Swedish teenager began playing poker online at the highest stakes. The account was registered as Isildur1. Within a year, Isildur1 was playing in games with the best online players in the world. Within two years, Isildur1 had made millions of dollars. Within three years, Isildur1 had lost much of it back.
The story of Isildur1 is interesting not because of the wins and losses, but because of what it reveals about the nature of uncertainty. Blom was young, talented, and bold. But Blom was also young, inexperienced, and vulnerable to variance.
The Question of Skill
Isildur1 won a lot of money. Does this prove Isildur1 was the best player? Not necessarily. Isildur1 could have been skilled and also lucky. A talented player with 1,000 dollars in bankroll can go broke due to variance. A mediocre player with 1 million dollars can stay in business for years.
The philosophical question is: what does it mean to be good at poker? Is it making money? Is it playing optimally? Isildur1 made money, so by the first definition, Isildur1 was good. But Isildur1 later lost money, so by the same definition, Isildur1 became bad.
The Risk Environment
Isildur1 played in an environment where stakes were high and swings were enormous. A single hand could be fifty thousand dollars. A losing week could be several hundred thousand. Variance at these stakes is extreme. The best player in the world has a certain probability of losing significant money in any given month.
Blom's bankroll was not infinite. Blom was playing a portion of his assets at high stakes. This means Blom was exposed to the possibility of being "played off": losing so much money that the bankroll is depleted and Blom must stop playing.
The deeper question is whether playing at these stakes with this risk is rational. Blom was young. Blom had time to recover from losses. But Blom was also testing a binary outcome: get rich or lose everything.
The Lack of Certainty
One key difference between Blom and older players like Doyle Brunson is certitude. Brunson's record was built over decades. Brunson's skill was proven through time. Brunson was certainly good.
Blom's record was built in a few years. Blom could still be good, but there is less historical evidence. The question remains open: is Blom's success due to skill or luck?
Over a long enough timeframe, luck washes out and skill becomes visible. Blom has not had that long enough timeframe. Blom might have been the best player and also gotten unlucky. Or Blom might have been an above-average player who got lucky.
The Moral of Variance
The story of Isildur1 is ultimately about risk-taking in an uncertain environment. Blom took enormous risks. The risks paid off for a time. Then the risks did not pay off. This does not mean the risk-taking was irrational at the moment the decision was made. It means the outcome was uncertain.
This is an ancient philosophical question. Socrates asked: is the person who makes a good decision but gets a bad outcome wiser than the person who makes a bad decision but gets a good outcome? Isildur1 made a decision to play high stakes and got a good outcome initially. But the underlying decision's quality was not determined by that outcome.
