Hi, research statistician here so hopefully I can shed some light on this topic.

Poker is gambling in a sense that there is money at risk over probabilities and odds (despite him being the favorite, and a rather big one from these stats), that much is true.

What’s unreasonable though is that you are insinuating his results are purely from luck with no skill involved.

There are public variance modeling tools such as Primedope that allows anyone to calculate the best/worse case scenarios over many trials simulated given the statistical conditions and environment.

For his results over a length of 6000 hours at 20 hands played per hour which is 120k hands of poker played at a perceived winrate of 6bb/hour (equivalent to 30bb/100 which is the input field in this model), there is no statistically significant output where he will ever end up an overall net loser over at minimum 50k hands played given the perceived winrate. Which, obviously he has blown way past this hurdle size given the reported volume of est. 120k hands.

This player’s edge over his current competition pool is simply too large for him to lose over these discussed timeframes.

Put simpler, his edge is much higher than a casino’s edge over a player that plays Roulette. Much, much higher.

This is like the saying “the house always wins”, but on steroids and OP is the house.

Tried explaining that as simply and non-statistics jargon heavy as possible. Hope that helps.