How do you "rate" or know how good a poker player is?

This is a basic question. I don't think it comes down just to bankroll either because you could have a better then average player making more money but doing better table selection and finding worse players which is important but not really says nothing about how good a player is. I know there are big tournaments but this only says something about the best but not the average player.

I'm thinking something along chess ratings... for example, everyone starts at 1500 and then as you play more games you ratings will change. I've won as many games heads up as I lost so I'm thinking at my level I'd still be 1500 or whatever we set the starting rate too.

you play them and then decide

Please no ranking systems, then the fish may realize they really haven't won $12k and that they actually aren't that good.

You never know how good anyone is until you witness them while they're losing! Anyone can play well while they're winning, but a true test of a "winning player" is how he handles adversity.

I disagree. Table selection and bankroll management are weapons in a poker player`s arsenal, every bit as important as tactics at the table.

I agree with Egon about disagreeing. Table selection is a poker skill. If you're good enough at that to outweigh someone else's superior theoretical understanding of, say, pot odds, then you're a better player than him or her.

You can define it any which way you want to, really. A couple of suggestions:

1. The player who has won the most money in his life.
2. The player who has won the most money in the last month.
3. The player who has won most consistently (perhaps Jamie Gold isn't the pinnacle in this case)
4. The player who wins the most per hour.
5. The player who wins the most per table.
6. The player who wins the most per 100 hands.
7. The player who has the best A-game.
8. The player who has the best C-game.
9. It's a game after all: The player who has the most fun.
10. The player who has mastered all of the different poker variants best.
11. The player who can play the wildest style and still win.


...

But it all comes down to what you're trying to achieve by this rating. If your goal is to know who to avoid at the tables you sit, then "the players I'm least likely to show a profit from" are the good players. If you want to know because you're trying to learn from them, then perhaps #4 and #9 are the things you should look at. If it's an ego-stroking thing (and let's be honest, we all do it) then define a "good player" to be something that stresses your own strengths and you'll feel pretty good about it.

Numbers don't mean much to me, because i feel everyone is learning all the time and therefore changing.

Winnings isn't the answer. I'm pretty sure Jamie Gold's $12 million win makes him poker's top money maker, but few would classify him as the best in the world.

Rating a player is like comparing apples to oranges.
There are a lot of various categories, like F Paulsson mentioned. So I guess it depends on what importance you give to each category. And many of the categories aren't measurable.

If player X can win 5bb/100 for 5 hours, but slips to 1bb/100 due to fatigue after that, and player Y can win 3bb/100 for 15 hours straight, who's the better player?

It's like comparing bb/100 to bb/hour. If someone has half the bb/100 as someone else, but can sustain that over twice as many tables, who's better?

The simplest criteria: If player X winds up with all yer chips, for that day/game/hand, he was better than you.

Your only as good as your last game.

Im sorry but i have to strongly disagree with u on that.
Poker is a long term game since there is some luck involved that can scew short term reasults,so i whould think the saying your only as good as your last 10K games whould be better fiting.

i agree we dont need a ranking system it wouldnt mater anyways if ur playing a donk ur playing a donk he will hit out on you no matter what his ranking is

Disagree here too. Just like football. Are the Giants really better than the Patriots? Their defense came to work, and so did a miracle or 2 in the last 5 minutes. Any given Sunday. And there are only 16 in football, 20 if you're lucky.

BTW, I have to disagree about poker table selection being a skill if you're referring to sharkscope, or other methods of tracking. That stuff gives you another weapon for winning $$$ but does not make you a better player for beating the weak.

wat?

Ooh! I thought of a good way to rephrase this question:

Which is better, rock, paper or scissors?

Furnace.

Defff, Furnace FTW

Cake! Bastard!

Waht?

Does furnace beat Rock? even powerful heat resistant rock?

I could see furnace beating paper and scissors but...


By the way, to contribute to this thread I think the best way to rate how good a player is, is by the amount of money a certain player makes in (x) many years. Example would be (lets say cashgames not loldonkaments)

JoeyJoeJoe makes $655,000 over 5 years of playing poker, he would be considered quite a good player, but a better player would be George who has made $1,430,000 over 5 years of playing. The requirements are that you have a LARGE sample size of your play so that variance is, in effect, greatly reduced and only skill remains.

So Phil who has won $200,000 over 2 months of playing poker is not more skilled than Bill who has made $800,000 over 4 years playing poker even though Phil made 25% of what Bill made in a MUCH quicker timeframe.

Bill is probably going to be the player that makes more money in the long run....but perhaps not? I think I would take Bill because of the amounts of tough situations and probably better BRM he has practiced, more "skill" so to speak.

Its not about pots won, its about how u play. A few ideas from Mike Caro

Each time you stray from your best game or spend time in the wrong game, those are hours wasted.
 What is "enough" when you treat poker as a business?
· Just knowing poker isn't enough; you need to play seriously.
· And playing poker seriously isn't enough; you need to play poker ample hours to earn a living.
· And playing poker seriously ample hours to earn a living isn't enough; you need to play in the right places.
· And playing poker seriously ample hours to earn a living in the right places isn't enough; you need to play at the right times.
· And playing poker seriously ample hours to earn a living in the right places at the right times isn't enough; you need to play against the right people.
· And playing poker seriously ample hours to earn a living in the right places at the right times against the right people isn't enough; you need to play your best game all the time.
· Playing poker seriously ample hours to earn a living in the right places at the right times against the right people and playing your best game all the time is enough
- IF you keep records!
 You must play your best game all the time.
The policy of playing your best game most of the time is the greatest destroyer of bankrolls there is. At higher-limit games, players actually seem to take turns "going on tilt." If you pass your turn quite often, without your opponents realizing it, you'll win the most money. This is known as "Caro's Law of Least Tilt."
I first wrote about this almost 20 years ago. It remains one of the most fundamentally important things you can learn if you want to succeed at poker. You are not likely to succeed if you decide to blatantly take advantage of knowledgeable opponents' super-loose play. If they're taking turns going on tilt, and you come into the game and play perfectly stable, you won't fit in. They will resent you and often they will stop providing you with profit.

Attached Images

caro.JPG (166.8 KB, 2 views)

yep that dang river get me most of the time. all i know is i will get it back gl

Step 1: Lock everyone in a big room

Step 2: Force them to play 24/7

Step 3: After a year we tally total winnings, although people who have committed suicide are disqualified

Step 4: We have the perfect population control scheme

Step 5: Enslave the biggest winners and force them to play for us

Step 6: Profit $$$

IF I BEAT STEP 6 DO I GO TO WSOP 2009?!?!?!?

no, you get AIDS

FAK NOT THE AIDS

which is better.... vanilla or chocolate ice cream?

and PLEASE!....no more giant ass close-ups of Mike Caro!!

OK. I can sum it up simply:

The best players make the best decisions most often. Period.

Now, which of those decisions are most important can be debated.

Having the most chips in a game DOES NOT make you the best player. I've seen some of the worst players have some lucky runs and make themselves seem like great players. Then I've seen some great players go on bad runs due to luck, even though they made good decisions.

On a personal note, there are some players here on CC that have had some nice winning runs who I wouldn't consider great players because I've seen them make too many bad decisions. But on the flip side, I've also seen some players here on CC who aren't viewed as big winners but always seem to make good decisions when I play them and I consider them great players.

Anyway. I think you have to watch a player actually play (observe or actually play against them) to decide whether or not they are really good. Posted results here and there don't always tell the truth.

Quoi?

The player's recent overall performance, and ultimately the amount they have managed to win.