To be a master, what counts?

[FlushOnFlop]

Hi all. I am seeking some general feedback from players whether they are new, avg joe, pro, etc....

Under what criteria do you feel a poker player deserves "master" player status?

What do you look for in a player to call him or her a "master" of the game?

Could it be one or more of the following:

1) winning an wsop or other major event title?
2) winning multi titles over career?
3) cashes in more than 90% of time?
4) tactics, logic, math, etc...
5) overall career winnings?

Any others?

Should there be a global standard to be considered a "master"? And if so what is the criteria?

1) New player
2) Average player
3) Professional
4) Master player?

Example: just because a player wins 1st at the paradise masters does not count. Why would it? Or should it?

Thank you much for your input.

 

[dj11]

Good question, and welcome to CC.

You've hit on one place where results may be the only thing that matters.

Overall, I wonder who would even consider themselves master of the game of poker. The big names and the soon to be names of the poker world might brag about having mastered the game, but most I think would shy away from saying that knowing the poker gods would shoot them down immediately.

Take Mike Matisow (please take him somewhere), he would be the one person I might guess would say he is a master of the game, and then would be slapped upside the head by Phil Helmuth.

 

[Stick66]

I worked in a bait factory once. I was an "Apprentice Baiter", but I never made it to "Master".

 

[FlushOnFlop]

Good question, and welcome to CC.

You've hit on one place where results may be the only thing that matters.

Thanks for the welcome dj11. Results from a formula can be defined vastly.

 

[reglardave]

If I cashed 90% of the time, I would consider myself a master; never mind what anyone else thought.

 

[ripptyde]

If I cashed 90% of the time, I would consider myself a master; never mind what anyone else thought.

that pretty much sums it up.

bracelets....no bracelets....wins no wins....fame or no fame...it all comes down to the mighty dollar.

ROI is really all that matters.....money spent/money won

plenty of famous players who have won millions are now deep in hock...in fact from what I hear its a BIG percentage of a lot of the 'pros' we see on TV...estimates on 2+2 claim that as many as 75% of the 'name' tourney pros are staked. The illusion is not real

It all comes down to profit. I think a lot of the very successful players are happy to play in the shadows with no fan fare and care not about recognition or fame.

 

[smd173]

I worked in a bait factory once. I was an "Apprentice Baiter", but I never made it to "Master".

Har har. Try the veal...