How to tell if you are a good player or not

[texasfoldem]

Mkay. So you’re holding AA that lost to 72. Are you more surprised with how poorly they played or how poorly you played?

Why do you persist in digging a hole for yourself? Either admit you made a silly mistake or stop replying. Everyone can see your replies. Welcome to the internet.

1. You have now told the whole forum that you think calling someone's all-in with AA pre-flop is poor play!

2. I have already told you I am not surprised by anything because I have too much experience to be.

Scenario 2: Pro player with AA loses to player holding rubbish.

1. Hero holding AA on the button. 3 bets (or 4 bets... or whatever takes their fancy).

2. Villain calls.

3. Flop comes K72 rainbow.

4. Villain checks...

5. Hero C-bets/ raises (whatever kind of raise they feel is appropriate)

6. Villain calls... and proceeds to call or check EVERY move that the Hero does regardless of what they do (very very common on ANY table)

7. Showdown... Villain shows 72o and wins pot with 2 pairs against Hero with AA

Question: At what point, pray tell, does our Hero FOLD??

I would imagine it would be a little difficult online seeing as there won't BE a button available to fold his hand throughout the entire hand!! In a live game you would look a little silly too if you folded.

There is an option for you to not reply and we can leave it at that.

 

[iWin210]

We all want to believe that we are smart, good looking, and good poker players, but in reality it's a minority of people who possess each of these individual qualities, let alone the whole package.


For intelligence we have IQ tests, for looks beauty pageants (well, for women only, and then who's discriminated against here, right?), but how can you find out how good of a player you are?


Here is my answer to that question:


If you are mostly surprised by how bad the players who win against you are, you're a bad player.
If you are mainly surprised by how bad the players you win against are, you're a good player.
If you can't tell one way or the other, you are a donk.


PS: Don't feel bad if you found yourself in the donk category. You are still a bad player, but have more fun, and most likely lose less money at the tables than the other bad players who are not donks

So true buddy. Ty for this.

 

[perrywh]

If you think your a good player just check yourself out on sharkscope.com and find out. ENOUGH SAID!

 

[Thefish87]

I use to be a fish turned into a somewhat solid players but I think to consider a good player is not counted on wins as of I learn but learning to keep your bankroll and play as long as possible true skill is in that part I think everyone can call cards and play but whether they can handle swings imo is how you can tell how good you are that's just me...in poker everyone Is constantly learning so i might add adjustments if u can control those two then I think you can consider yourself a good play I feel like I can play

 

[digdug0037]

I think that the better players just know how to minimize their losses, where bad players get way to tied up in trying to hit a big payday and they never realize how much they are losing.

 

[zinzir]

I do not agree with any of your answers. All you have done is made reference to someone's experience level. Anyone who has played more than a few hundred hands should be perfectly aware that bad players can beat you. You can be sitting on the button with AA against some VPIP 70 player who is in BB with K8o. If they end up with a set of 8s and you have just AA then you will lose... and probably a lot especially if you played correctly!


If you are surprised by anything at all then you are almost certainly not experienced. That means you are almost certainly not that good.

EDIT: Just thought I would mention - I think a good player is one that first learns how to play well, and then has financial success by using that knowledge. Experience and perseverance will then do the rest.

While not agreeing with any of my answers is perfectly okay, (after all my post contains only statements of opinion and not fact), your example shows that you did not actually understand what I was trying to say there.

In my post I was talking about being surprised " mainly", or "mostly", meaning more often than not. While good players are not immune to bad beats, those do not happen most of the time by any means, actually they represent the exception and not the rule.

K8o will win agains AA about 17% of the time, on average. Let's round it to 20%, or 1 in 5. So the player holding AA will win 4 out of 5 times against K8o, and even though he will be surprised every single time of how bad the K8o player(s) were, he will most of the time win against such players, so he will be mainly surprised by how bad the players he wins against are.

I find your statement "If you are surprised by anything at all then you are almost certainly not experienced" quite pretentious. In my opinion there wasn't a single player in the history of poker who was "not surprised by anything".

 

[Poker Orifice]

Being a bad poker player is just like being stupid you will never know..

Exactly this ^

Also, most good players aren't asking themselves if they are a good player.... they know they are. The great thing about poker though is.... lots of bad players ALSO think they're good players.

 

[Arthur ZM]

I have long understood that I am a bad player, because all the money that I manage to win in poker I eventually lose.

 

[uri73796]

A bad player will never tell himself that he is a bad player.He says that he plays correctly but still loses.The main thing is to be aware of your bad game, find your mistakes and correct them.Poker is a game of mistakes and experiences, failures and disappointments, UPS and downs.

 

[rrickir]

I have long understood that I am a bad player, because all the money that I manage to win in poker I eventually lose.

Sometimes it's a good idea to withdraw money that you have won and take a little break that way you cannot lose your winnings right back.... but if it's not enough to withdraw then that happens to everyone where you just continue to play and may gradually lose some back. It's a delicate balance to figure out

 

[zinzir]

If you think your a good player just check yourself out on SharkScope.com and find out. ENOUGH SAID!

I doubt that you'll ever find me on SharkScope. Try DonkScope instead

 

[Ricardo_lhp]

I do not think it is in one way or another. To find out if the person is a good player is very simple: just show results! Good players the graphics are always up and hardly any variance is noticed, and just look also at the value he plays and his ROI, then see if a player is good enough or not. Just say it is better or worse that others will never give parameters to know if he is a good player or not.

 

[perrywh]

I doubt that you'll ever find me on SharkScope. Try DonkScope instead

OH your on sharkscope and not a bad player as you want others to think! LOL!

 

[pfalapt]

I'm a nit trying to complete the transformation into a nat. At this point in my transformation, I measure my poker play by the amount I used to lose each year playing golf. So far, after 6 yrs playing poker and no golf, I'm ahead.

may the variance be with you

 

[zinzir]

OH your on sharkscope and not a bad player as you want others to think! LOL!

Your statement is flattering and I wish it was true. In reality, it just proves SharkScope's limitations.
You played against me more than one time during CC freerolls, what do you think, based on the way I play, am I a donk or not?
SharkScope simply compounds tournament results and estimates a player's skill level based on profitability, subtracting buy-ins from tournament winnings. SharkScope erroneously gives a weaker player who plays only freerolls both an ROI and a skill level higher than a superior player who also plays buy-in tournaments.
Unfortunately, neither SharkScope nor other similar sites tell more than a small part of the story when estimating a player's skill level.

 

[Hemified]

I thought we were all professional players. If its up to anyone no..lol..but the person, yes because we believe in ourselves.

 

[perrywh]

Your statement is flattering and I wish it was true. In reality, it just proves SharkScope's limitations.
You played against me more than one time during CC freerolls, what do you think, based on the way I play, am I a donk or not?
SharkScope simply compounds tournament results and estimates a player's skill level based on profitability, subtracting buy-ins from tournament winnings. SharkScope erroneously gives a weaker player who plays only freerolls both an ROI and a skill level higher than a superior player who also plays buy-in tournaments.
Unfortunately, neither SharkScope nor other similar sites tell more than a small part of the story when estimating a player's skill level.

You play better than you give yourself credit!

 

[texasfoldem]

While not agreeing with any of my answers is perfectly okay, (after all my post contains only statements of opinion and not fact), your example shows that you did not actually understand what I was trying to say there.

In my post I was talking about being surprised " mainly", or "mostly", meaning more often than not. While good players are not immune to bad beats, those do not happen most of the time by any means, actually they represent the exception and not the rule.

K8o will win agains AA about 17% of the time, on average. Let's round it to 20%, or 1 in 5. So the player holding AA will win 4 out of 5 times against K8o, and even though he will be surprised every single time of how bad the K8o player(s) were, he will most of the time win against such players, so he will be mainly surprised by how bad the players he wins against are.

I find your statement "If you are surprised by anything at all then you are almost certainly not experienced" quite pretentious. In my opinion there wasn't a single player in the history of poker who was "not surprised by anything".

Yes, but the fact that you know those stats means that it should not really be surprising. I do not think surprise is the right word. I get irritated often by what might seem bad beats. Usually I look back and realize that it probably wasn't a bad beat at all but rather just the variance.

I would simply use a different word than "surprise": "an unexpected or astonishing event, fact, etc." It is expected for good players to lose money to bad players a proportion of the time. You spend more time winning against bad players than you do losing though.

I would be surprised if 3 aces went down on the flop if I was holding pocket aces. That would be surprising!

 

[Pokerishard]

If you make money "+" in poker.........that means you are a good player...,if you go "-" that means you need to improve.....to change........to train more...........learn more.......it is so easy.......like in all "sports"..........the results are talking for US.....

 

[PackinPat]

If you make money "+" in poker.........that means you are a good player...,if you go "-" that means you need to improve.....to change........to train more...........learn more.......it is so easy.......like in all "sports"..........the results are talking for US.....

Results are not the end all. Not all great players win the championship

 

[recerveau]

We all want to believe that we are smart, good looking, and good poker players, but in reality it's a minority of people who possess each of these individual qualities, let alone the whole package.


For intelligence we have IQ tests, for looks beauty pageants (well, for women only, and then who's discriminated against here, right?), but how can you find out how good of a player you are?


Here is my answer to that question:


If you are mostly surprised by how bad the players who win against you are, you're a bad player.
If you are mainly surprised by how bad the players you win against are, you're a good player.
If you can't tell one way or the other, you are a donk.


PS: Don't feel bad if you found yourself in the donk category. You are still a bad player, but have more fun, and most likely lose less money at the tables than the other bad players who are not donks

For me, good players are like statues (or the complete opposite).

 

[akmost]

I guess we have to consider 3 variables in order to answer that?!?!:

a. Competition
b. Volume
c. Assessment by a proven good player

Someone may crush micro limits by knowing basic strategy but most likely he will get crushed in higher limits without further studying.

 

[Svyat66556]

if you will lose your money to me on a regular basis,
losing to me, then I am a good player for you)))

 

[Joe]

The obvious answer is Return Of Investment. Or in plain language do you profit from it in the long run?

How long in your opinion does a player have to turn a profit online before they are deemed good/bad?

If you folded pre-flop with AA because you knew that they were going to end up with 2 pairs, that does not make a you a good player. It means you are clairvoyant (or a hacker!)

Out of interest, do you believe such a thing is possible?

IMHO, being a good poker player means being able to constantly adjust your play to make correct decisions against the specific players at your table and the specific hand/game situation you find yourself in at any given moment, as well as not allowing variance/bad beats to affect your state of mind and your play. Nobody can do this perfectly all of the time (we are all human and make mistakes, and we never have complete information), but those who can do it more often than not can succeed, and in the long run this success will be reflected in your graph, your profit, ROI, etc.

At this point, I would consider myself a mediocre player. I still have a lot to learn. I'll admit that up until a year ago, I was a terrible player. I really didn't know what I was doing and didn't really care to learn. Then I decided to take poker seriously, and in the last year I've built a bankroll from $0 to $1250 playing freerolls and micro stakes. Its been slow and difficult, but I hope to continue to improve.

I'd say you just knocked it outta the park in your first paragraph and hearty congratulations for your second! :congrats:

I think good poker player starts with bankroll managament, you can win 1000 usd one day and think you are a poker god but when you lose it all within next couple od days then your skill diminishes as fast as your selfconfidence.

There's something about a big win that can definitely lead to complacency and over confidence, watch out for this!

If you haven't lost your car, your apartment, or your job, then you're not playing so bad
=)

I'm not 100% sure your list is entirely complete my friend! :biggrin:

 

[lanelane]

I've never considered myself a good player - nor am I a good player.
But there is a saying: Whoever is lucky on a card has no luck in love. )