What Defines a Good player?

I know, I know it really sounds like an easy Question to answer correct? Yet I don't really want some Kiddy answer like "I know I'm good, when My BR is up", or like "Cuz I'm constantly winning"...I mean realistically, there's ppl that Are always winning, yet are they really good? It could all be thought up as a long Up Swing Variance, being good to them, Could it Not? Yes there Ok (I guess) to always be a winning player, but are they realistically good, or very good/excellent? I've been thinking lately alot about playing the Sunday Million/Warm-up events, and yes It's realistically steep for me to even phatom (Throwing) $215 , in-to that Tourney and truethfully, I'd be Choked if I did'nt atleast come out ITM, but the thing about it is, the Players that do win them, Minus the actual Highstakes players that play in them, the rest are just your average Joe correct? So with that being said, are they good to have won that Tourney, or were they just destined to win it? Hold on to this for a minute..

Now lets assume you won it, $215,000.00, this does'nt neccissarly make you good/average/above average, pro, or anything down those lines correct, it just means you were a 1 time thing, correct? There-fore, you can't really think a person who wins this tourney is a good player correct? So with this thinking what actually defies a good player? Personally even if I were to win the Sunday Million, I would'nt think I'm any where near good/decent/average for many reasons, but Primarely I'd have to atleast win it another 3 times in 1 year to even think I'm decent/Good/Average of a player Correct? I said 3 because I figure the 1st was fluke, Lady Luck, the 2nd good just be Lady Luck again, but 3rd well then that's just lets a person have that boost of confidence, and actually lets him/her, Know there doing something correct? There-fore then and only then can they actually start thinking there Good, Correct?

Now here's my question to you all, what defies a good player? What builds a good player? I'm not talking pro, I'm not talking Highstakes, just your Average/Above Average MTT Grinder? What Strengths, does one need, and What Weaknesses must one Work on, in-Order to Become an Average/Above Average MTT Grinder?

Thx all for reading it

You can never be sure, but anybody who wins over hundreds of thousands of hands is doing something right.

When other winning players avoid sitting at your table or playing hands against you, you are probably good. Or it could be that you're annoying and smell like shit. One of the two.

A good player will go to the showdown with the better hand, trying to make you think he/she was bluffing.. and will make you fold, when they are actually bluffing.

a good poker player is someone who does not give up when he is on a downswing, he can lower stakes, has patience, studies a lot, always looking for ways to improve his game, adapts.

A good player is a one who knows to play well , can lower the stakes ,has lot of patience , studies the game very well and wins a lot of money............

naruto_miu said:

or like "Cuz I'm constantly winning"...I mean realistically, there's ppl that Are always winning, yet are they really good?

Click to expand...

These Questions/Statements come up regularly in a variety of ways.

The short answer is yes,If you can consistantly win over a decent sample size,you are a good player!

Now,How/Why do I believe this?Because I have seen many people across the table live and online and I generally know within 1-2 hours how well they can play.

Lets look and other areas of life for examples:

A Doctor has an 80% sucess rate at a particular surgury and the average success rate is 50%.Do you really believe this doctor is luckier than the average doctor? Would you want this Doctor performing your surgury if it was needed?These would be easy answers for me.

If a golfer is able to regularly win golf tourneys,Is he good or lucky?

Some might try to argue that poker has a larger element of luck than my 2 examples and my response would be,it only matters on a small sample size but the larger the sample, the less luck plays a factor.

Is an Actor/Actress lucky because they get the best parts in movies and win the Awards?I say in almost all cases,NO.They have studied thier craft and learned to be good at it, which builds the confidance to excel and thus leads to them getting the best parts that lead to the awards.

I really believe, people that think that players that consistantly win are lucky or not really that good,are generally jealous and lacking in skills necessary to win consistantly.

A perfect example here at CC is JoeShowdown.Joe really understands the game and wins more than his fair share consistantly.I knew with-in a hour or so that Joe is good at poker.He has his haters,and non believers, but to be honest the guy can flat play the game.People that think he is lucky just dont understand,and there are plenty of them.

I dont expect to convince everyone that people that win consistantly are good,but to be honest If they think like this, they should spend thier time in the rigged thread because to me it similar thinking.

There are tons of Qualitys that go into being a good poker player and people that are successful have most of the Qualitys necessary or they wouldnt be consistant winners.

Do good players have bad runs?Yes,all good players struggle at times.That doesnt change if they are good.

To end this posts I will reverse the Question:Are there good players that can virtually never win? I say No,If they are good,they will win more than there fair share and be able to show consistant profits over time.There are people that can play the game well and suck at managing thier bankroll,and that would open up the argument of if they are really good.


Snow

Aewsome post Snowmobiler

Good is relative. For instance, is someone is crushing micro-limit tables over a statistically significant sample, it would be hard to argue he or she is good *at that level*. However, would the same person still be good if dropped into a game against people who win at say $50/$100? Even if we hypothetically remove any concerns about playing scared for bankroll reasons, I doubt it. A small percentage of people would probably be able to adapt, but it would take at least some time, and they'd have to change / improve their games considerably from what allowed them to be good at the micros.

Arjonius said:

Good is relative. For instance, is someone is crushing micro-limit tables over a statistically significant sample, it would be hard to argue he or she is good *at that level*. However, would the same person still be good if dropped into a game against people who win at say $50/$100? Even if we hypothetically remove any concerns about playing scared for bankroll reasons, I doubt it. A small percentage of people would probably be able to adapt, but it would take at least some time, and they'd have to change / improve their games considerably from what allowed them to be good at the micros.

Click to expand...

If you took a heart doctor and asked them to operate on a brain and they were out of thier element,would you say they are not good at heart surgury?

The origanal question,It was stipulated that they were consistantly winning player. Just because you put the person against better players doesnt make them less good at the game.I agree that there would be an adjustment period,but after they win at that level you could try and make the same argument, that you can move them to another even higher level.This being the case ,only the top players at nose bleed levels would be considered good.i think this is to tight of a definition of a good player and unrealistic.


Snow

very interesting post my friend

Ok I will go on here a bit and truly state what I strongly feel...so what defines a good player firstly confidence in your post you talked about the third win giving you that boost of CONFIDENCE to let you know you are really decent and what not I really do not like this course of thinking a truly good player will get that by his second win at the minimum. I understand the difference of being good and just being cocky but all good players are confident players and the greater ones are very very confident, watch a hand where phil ivey or tom dwan lose a pot on the river and you will see there facial expression be so awkward or look like they cant believe what just happened because they were so confident they were ahead or what they thought thier opponent had.
Confidence is extremely important

ill see if there any responses to what i have to say here and then hopefully make a new post on...so what defines a good player secondly DISCIPLINE
good luck to you all and ill see you at the final table!

A good player is someone who can manage money well. I'v herd it in loads it everywhere.

Sorry for this semi-derail... i tilted a little bit at how many times you said "correct"

a good player = $$$$$

If you can break even in poker, you've proven to be a good player by defeating the luck involved, then it just goes up from there.

Just use PTR or sharkscope if you think someone is getting lucky.

very nice blogg,, wat makes a good online poker player,,,ive been playin online for 6 years now,,,can hold my own at holdem,,omaha h,l etc,,,ive won plenty cash in tourneys,,and cash tabs,,,ive got a friend ,online hes called LILSMILER,hes the lazy,ist person u could ever meet ,he started playin online ,,1 year before me,,,hes only 23 years old now,,,,hes got the gift ov poker playin,,,HES NOT THE BRIGHTEST LAD...lol ,,but wen it comes to poker online or poker live,hes diffrent class,,really is,,he left scool wiv no qaulls,,some poeple just have a talent for cards,just like poeple have talent for sport,,its as simple as that

A good player to me is one who can adjust thier game based on the changing conditions of the table they are playing on.A good player can adapt to the many styles of play players bring and can hold thier own while staying true to thier own principles.I also belive a good player always maintains some kind of consistancy in the decisions being made from hand to hand.

blackmax said:

A good player to me is one who can adjust thier game based on the changing conditions of the table they are playing on. A good player can adapt to the many styles of play players bring and can hold thier own while staying true to thier own principles.I also believe a good player always maintains some kind of consistancy in the decisions being made from hand to hand.

Click to expand...

I agree with that.

I don't agree that a guy who is killing at a lower level but having a problem moving up is not good. We all have our comfort zone, and, IMO, it's one of the marks of a good player to know what his comfort zone is.

I'm also not sure that playing at high levels is the mark of a "good" player. It's the mark of a player who can deal with big swings with equanimity. He may be good, but not because of the level of buy-in he plays at.

IMO...

1. Good BRM.
2. Low Tilt Factor.
3. Blends the main aspects of poker together well (Psychology and mathmatics.)

Being able to adjust and play different styles and keep everyone guessing. Knowing when to raise in different situations and the correct bet. Know when to hold em and when to fold em.

In most cases; smaller limits, being good is playing the best cards, getting your $ in and having the balls to take ur lumps. Let upswing varianve take it from there. A suckout is a suckout.

wow 22 month bump.... does cc give trophies out?

LaserCats said:

In most cases; smaller limits, being good is playing the best cards, getting your $ in and having the balls to take ur lumps. Let upswing varianve take it from there. A suckout is a suckout.

Click to expand...

hawtshawt420 said:

wow 22 month bump.... does cc give trophies out?

Click to expand...

Only for members who feel passionately enough to bump an old thread so that they can add a high quality post (see above ^).
What I got from it (cliff notes) Good player = get good cards & have balls

LaserCats said:

In most cases; smaller limits, being good is playing the best cards, getting your $ in and having the balls to take ur lumps. Let upswing varianve take it from there. A suckout is a suckout.

Click to expand...

There should be 'penalties' instead of trophies,.... ie. good bump post = 'minus' 10 posts, lol

Witty Genius...

Special BackDoor Orifice, the point is - people overthink everything. Good/Bad, profitable/not profitable etc. Droning on and on on this thread is for old ladies and yentas.
P.S.Nobody gives a shet about the number of posts I have. Not me, thats for sure.