There's quotes out there about how poker is 9x% luck, & that last stretch of skill is a game of chess. What they're talking about is skill cap. By this we mean that poker is such a hard game that not even the best players are playing it perfectly. See a recent AI Pluribus for some articles on how AI's pushing this game
Essentially it's about having a 3d graph with the three labels:
X: Player1's skill
Y: Player2's skill
Z: Player1's chance to beat Player2
Issue: skill may vary with different strategies, so that you end up in rock-paper-scissors scenarios
Then there's a function over how much effort is required for a player to increase their skill. This is how we get games described as "easy to learn, hard to master" they're games with high skill caps but which a player should be able to quickly have more than single digit odds against an experienced player
An interesting thing with this 3d graph is that you can make transforms on it while treating the game itself as a blackbox. For example, in StarCraft players will often play Bo3 in tournaments. Plenty of commentators will go on about how this let's people bring a variety of strategies etc etc, but all it really does is avoid letting a single map's balance be decisive & exaggerates the advantage of skill. If you have a 70% winrate against someone, in a Bo3 you have an 80% winrate against them
This ends up creating interesting decision making scenarios when one can choose strategies which shift the role of luck in a game. It may make sense to play a strategy where even with perfect execution you only have a 40% winrate if the skillcap for that strategy is low enough & your opponent is better. This sort of thing makes it that there can be a bit of a divide where players are stuck at a 40% winrate against players who are better than them until they've become skilled enough to rationally play the higher skillcap strategy
Timely written, at the very peak of the mania (though Marks correctly admits that such precise timing is accidental, knowing well the difference between luck and skill :) ). You can find all Howard Marks memos on Oaktree's website.
It's got a lot of the classic "here's how humans are irrational" stuff that's in other similar books of it's genre, but I found it full of very practical tips as well.
This doesn't seem like a very good explanation, because we can and in many cases do change our views in the face of arguments from people we respect as geniuses. It doesn't have to be a coincidence or evidence of bias if the people you respect the most in some area of work also share your views about that area, because if you respected someone else more then you would change your views to those views.