Is there a "Best Poker Player"?

This thread is not meant to be a "Who do you think is the best poker player" type thread (but I do have an idea for a similar question), but instead a discussion on whether there actually is such a thing as "Best Poker Player". I started thinking about this while I was watching Poker After Dark: Daniel Negraunu was busted out and in the interview, mentioned something to the effect of "There's no best poker player, some people play well at one time, others at other times." So naturally this got me thinking, can anybody really say definitively that there is a best poker player?

I'm not sure of my opinion yet (still wet behind the ears), but an argument against a best poker player would be part of poker that is luck, no matter how small this part of the game is. At the highest level, maybe the only thing separating the players is the cards they're dealt, and their luck. What about you guys?

I believe even the best poker player will lose if the cards do not fall in their favor. So I do not believe there is one best poker player.

And even if there were, one person cannot be at every big tournament offered out there, so plenty of money is available for many people who are not the best poker players.

Very interesting idea.

That's an interesting question. I think if you got the 10 "best players" together and had them play 1,000 tournaments together, the "best player" might take 10.005% of the prize money, the "second best" would take 10.004%, etc., and the tenth best would take 9.995%. I think over enough games, they really are that close.

Then again, even that slight difference still wouldn't determine a "best" player. That's because game styles are so different. Player A might beat Player B regularly, and Player B might beat Player C. But Player C could still beat Player A regularly, so who's the best? It's kind of like in football or any other sport. Some matchups favor one side, and some matchups favor another.

That's just my (confused) $0.02. Good question.

-Dave

I guess you could say that the person who has won the most money is the best? Or the person with most wsop bracelets? Or maybe the player with most tourney wins?

It really is a unmeasurable thing and thats why I love watching poker. Gus Hansen isnt the best player in the world but I love watching him play so maybe hes the best for me I dont know. To your question I guess there is a system you can use to find the best player but it would be different for each person for example I dont think many people here think Helmuth is the greatest player.

And then you have to think wider than holdem, who playes every game to a high standard? Intresting question though very subjective.

I think the Negreanu quote actually claims there is a best in some weird way. Saying sometimes people are on their game and other times they aren't; that means whoever is on their game the most is the best. They all deal with the variance. Then we are saying sometimes they do play bad. If someone always plays good, they are going to breakdown the guy who eventually makes a mistake.

Yes, I think there can be a "best" player. IMO, the best player is the person who's A-game most consistently beats the toughest games and tournaments in terms of ev with implied and reverse implied factored in.

Is it possible that the best poker player is smart enough to avoid tourneys and big games and just plays for cash?

rugby0 said:

Is it possible that the best poker player is smart enough to avoid tourneys and big games and just plays for cash?

Click to expand...

IMO, no. There is an old saying, To be the best you have to beat the best. There are countless good players that can beat weak games, there are not that many that can consistently beat tough games.

I think that skill vs. chance is a good comparison. Good cards favor one player in the short run but even out in the long run. I think the better players can capitalize their skills in defining moments. Being able to read another player makes the difference, the big bet or the big fold. A lot of the play among the better players will sway back and forth between them, but they will generally be able to beat those of lesser skills.

GrimlyGrim said:

I think the Negreanu quote actually claims there is a best in some weird way. Saying sometimes people are on their game and other times they aren't; that means whoever is on their game the most is the best. They all deal with the variance. Then we are saying sometimes they do play bad. If someone always plays good, they are going to breakdown the guy who eventually makes a mistake.

Click to expand...

By your explanation, that means that the title of "Best Poker Player" keeps changing pretty frequently. I don't think it should be a revolving distinction, it should be more of an absolute thing.