Is the most successful poker player also the best in your opinion?

First of all do you believe that there is such a thing as "best" poker player? I personally don't think so because you can only get so much better in poker. When I see the top poker players in the world I don't see a single player that has a clear advantage over others, they are all great players so I think "one of the best" would be a more realistic thing to say about a poker player.

Anyways if you do believe someone can be the "best there is" then what is your criteria? Success? Don't you think the big tournaments which define a player's career have way too much luck involved? Doyle Brunson wrote in the Super System(not exact quote) "make no mistake you need plenty of luck to win these tournaments with huge fields and its almost impossible for anyone to always get their chips in with the better hand".

Lets take the example of the wsop main event. Anyone who wins it becomes a star over night even though we all know how much variance the main event has its not even funny.

With cash games I can completely agree that whoever makes the most money is naturally the better player in the long run. But I don't think anyone tracks the winnings and losses of the big players in cash games so we don't know.

I also don't understand why tournament "winnings" are tracked of players but not the actual profit. I mean to say that you have made XYZ million playing WSOP events is not significant unless we know how much did you invest in all the events including those that were a loss.

I think skill wise their are 100's if not thousands of unknown players who have unique talent to match anyone out there.

but the whole package, discipline, consistancy, inteligence, control, intuition.

if you give me one player I think daniel negreanu after what hes done to come back this year and win player of the year and one of his biggest tournament cashes to date is off the scale.

Can any one player make it as a career playing live mtt fields for five figure buy ins without backing,staking,big breaks or sponsorships

my answer is probably not.

if you have security and 10k is not at risk or your buy in is payed for your going to have a huge advantage in a big tournament

I think most of them are best.They didnt just win a tournament and then disappered.They win often,at least make final table often.So they have real skill,not just they have great luck.

I think the most consistent ones are the best....whoever they may be.

also as saying that there is no best players . Most celebrities struck by the happiness and later made his money

Not at all! I find it amazing that some continually run like an Olympic Kenyan, CONTINUALLY! I've had a couple good runs of luck but staying in 'the zone' seems to be a home for others. You know? That guy who always hits the river. There's one guy whom I'll leave the table (live action) if he arrives - I've sadly learned my lesson. If he has only 1 out its a sure hit. ALWAYS!

There is no "best" player. The game is constantly changing. Just like a legendary football player from the 60's couldn't really be compared to a player from the current generation. Or an MMA fighter that was the "greatest" 12 years ago may not compete now. The game is different.

If anything, the "best" players are the ones that do positive things for poker OFF the tables.

Thinker_145 said:

First of all do you believe that there is such a thing as "best" poker player? .

Click to expand...

The problem with titles like "The Best" or "The GOAT" as they have in many sports, is that the title is inadeqautely specified to be meaningful. You can't just be 'better' or 'best' you have to be better than someone / some people and at something specific.

Poker isn't specific enough, it's a label for a collection of similar card games. To be the best overall everyone competing would have to be competing with a universally shared objective in mind. But success is subjective - we each have our own ambitions and goals (hopefully) Whilst we can look at money earned, I doubt all of the top players play with the very same objective with respect to money.

So, over the longer term it's difficult to assess when different players have their own objectives. Over the shorter term it can't be assessed any better - in individual tournaments players are playing diffferent hands at different tables - the conditions are too variable to make a fair comparison.

I imagine there are a small collection of elite players who regularly achieve their personal ambitions. These will be the set of 'best' players.

I will give you an example of a real good player. For me a player who reach 2 or 3 final tables at WSOP Main event is much better player than one who actually wins it. Some players won big tournaments just because it was their time, and after that simply disappear from big stages. When i see joe cada, duhammel, ryan riess winning a main event at WSOP it really doesn´t mean anything to me. But see other players making some final tables at that tournament that´s being one of the best poker players in the world.

kmichaels said:

I will give you an example of a real good player. For me a player who reach 2 or 3 final tables at WSOP Main event is much better player than one who actually wins it. Some players won big tournaments just because it was their time, and after that simply disappear from big stages. When i see joe cada, duhammel, ryan riess winning a main event at WSOP it really doesn´t mean anything to me. But see other players making some final tables at that tournament that´s being one of the best poker players in the world.

Click to expand...

It's true. In the tournaments on the WPT, EPT, LAPT, etc. there is a table of general positions of all the tournaments of the year. In this table there are a few players that are always in the first positions. Those are the best.

I think you must play good when you want to play at the final table. Without skill you don't make it. And you need a lot of experience when you want to be at the final table more often than just once.
I often played the final table at freerolls, and I always was concentrated. But when I'm not concentrated I don't make it thus far. I have often bad days when I don't really want to play and always loose at the beginning of the tournement.

cotta777 said:

I think skill wise their are 100's if not thousands of unknown players who have unique talent to match anyone out there.

'unknown' < what's your defintion of this? Unknown to 'you'... to the 'television viewing audience'... or to who?

if you have security and 10k is not at risk or your buy in is payed for your going to have a huge advantage in a big tournament

Click to expand...

I doubt any (many?) of the good players in 10k buyins are playing with scared money.

I think the most consistent ones are the best....whoever they may be

Consistency seems to be the key word here. But the best of the best are more than consistent. They must have sixth sense which, unfortunately, is not wide spread. What is sixth sense? The ability to "know" what cards are going to show up on the flop.

Yes, I think success would be a reputable criteria to judge whom is the best.

Personally I feel people that have the best cash/placement ratio are the best. The people that make the most cash appearnces in my opinion are the best and should have more respect from the poker community.