Blackjack vs Texas Holdem'

Is my impression correct

that luck seems to play a bigger role in Texas Hold'em than in BJ? The reason is I do not see those big name poker players advance far in the WSOP in recent years.

Do you think you can compare tournament play in one card game to regular play in another?

Well, if you have skill and skill is a big factor, shouldn't you win regardless of the format?

It might help to consider the amount of trials in each. In tournament poker, I think you can expect at least 30 hands per hour (I'm estimating), and say a big pro plays 4 days of 12 hours each before busting out. Not even accounting for breaks, table changes, etc., that's only 1440 hands. If you're playing blackjack at 100 hands per hour, that's less than 15 hours of play. Have you ever had a bad swing in 15 hours of play?

It's not completely analogous, but you get the point—many major tournament pros only cash in a few tournaments a year. The WSOP Main Event is only one of them. Tournament poker variance is much higher; you play many tournaments that you don't even cash in, but when you do, you cash big, offsetting all the buy-ins lost in tournaments that you busted out in. Yes, if you're skilled, you'll win in the long run, but that doesn't mean that you'll cash in every single WSOP Main Event.

Variance.
If we are talking about the WSOP, there are a bunch of pros that have multiple bracelets. Which means they do consistently well. Obviously the larger the tournament entrants the larger the variance.

As for live poker, if you go and sit at a 1/2 table it will be pretty boring.
1. 90% of the players have no idea how to play and they are just there to gambool.
2. Since they are just there to gambool they take a long time to act.
3. No thinking players at your table means you don't have to think much = boring