World Class Players

[Steve Giufre]

I'm not sure what got me thinking about this, but how do you guys define a WCP? I hear the term thrown around a lot, but I'm not sure anybody has really nailed down what it exactly it should mean. What limit do you think you should be able to consistantly beat to be considered world class? Should an 80-160 player who can win over a small bet an hour fit into this catagory? Or should it be more like someone who winning well over 100$ per hour at the higher limits? How many do you think we have who contribute to this site?

Finally, what do you think separates these players from other very solid players who are able to beat 30-60 and 40-80 games on a regular basis. I have my own thoughts but I'm intersted in hearing some opinions.

[Mikey]

Clarkmeister and Dynasty are WCP.

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
Clarkmeister and Dynasty are WCP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't give my opinion because if I have played with either of them, which I may have, I'm not aware of it. However, I'm curious as to what makes you point those two guys out as world class. I'm not saying I disagree, but there a lot of guys who play much higher and probably earn more who might not be considered to be world class by a lot of people. I say that with a tremendous amount of respesct for both Dynasty and Clark, and there obvious knowledge of the game. But you have to remember you're talking about putting them in a catagory with people like Ray Zee and Doyle Brunson, just two name a couple of no brainers.

So where should the line be drawn?

[scotnt73]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clarkmeister and Dynasty are WCP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't give my opinion because if I have played with either of them, which I may have, I'm not aware of it. However, I'm curious as to what makes you point those two guys out as world class. I'm not saying I disagree, but there a lot of guys who play much higher and probably earn more who might not be considered to be world class by a lot of people. I say that with a tremendous amount of respesct for both Dynasty and Clark, and there obvious knowledge of the game. But you have to remember you're talking about putting them in a catagory with people like Ray Zee and Doyle Brunson, just two name a couple of no brainers.

So where should the line be drawn?

[/ QUOTE ]

there is no line. world class is just a word. there is pro, amateur, fish. and the only way to know who the best pros are is to play with them. so the top players in the world know who the best of the best are. so i guess world class is when the best in the world say that you are one of the best in the world.

[AJo Go All In]

all due respect, i don't think they are

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Clarkmeister and Dynasty are WCP.

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, you should ask them...clark would not (at least i hope not) define himself as a world class player...he's been playing a relatively short period of time and to be a WCP that quickly is like bobby fisher style...clark may be nasty, but he ain't no bobby fisher, nor do i think he thinks he is. but this is just me talking about what somebody else whom i respect thinks so i may be off...

either way putting them in a catagory with DS, MM, and the like is a huge compliment and one they may or may not be ready for yet...especially since they've both played for the same # of years and that # is quite small.

and i certainly can't speak for dynasty having never met, or seen him play...but i can say that Clark is 8.5/10, imo. 10/10=world class.

-Barron

[ClarkNasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Clarkmeister and Dynasty are WCP.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Neither of us are.

[turnipmonster]

I think that like the word "prodigy" it is very overused and misapplied. to me, someone like lenny martin is a WCP. he's been beating tough, big games for forever.

--turnipmonster

[J.A.Sucker]

A true WCP can play many kinds of poker well, adjusting to different strucutres and betting limits quicker than other specialists. The person also can thrive in shorthanded and full games, of any structure. It doesn't matter what the game is, hold em, stud, or draw, limit or NL/PL, the WCP can beat the game. They just understand the mechanics of poker, what their opposition thinks, choosing spots, and good game selection, which can be identified very quickly. This last point is the most important, BTW, and is not just looking at the pot size. Frequently, the best games appear to have no action, while the worst games have pretty big pots.

[pete fabrizio]

I've got a rule:

Anyone who has an hourly rate lower than AJo's is automatically not a world class player.

Indeed, AJo is about 1/3 of a world class player.

Helpful?

[SpiderMnkE]

What is AJo's hourly rate? Am I beating it making $4.25 an hour with my new microlimit NL roll!!!

That's right... SpiderMnkE = WCP

[pete fabrizio]

Actually, I was serious.

[SpiderMnkE]

Well.. what's his hourly rate... how am I gunna know if I'm World Cliggiddy without that info

[Jason Strasser]

He plays the 200 SNGS and higher levels of NL ring games, I'd say its higher than $4 per hour. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Clarkmeister and Dynasty are WCP.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way, not even close. Both are excellent limit players, probably better than me. But definitely not WCPs.

[Ulysses]

Steve,

I simply think of WCPs as players who can consistently beat the biggest games. I think of guys who consistently beat the 80/100 level games as expert players. The next level up (and maybe even skip 2-4 since Commerce sometimes has some OK looking stud-only and HE-only games at that level - so 3-6 and above) is where I consider the WCP level guys to start. At that level, of course, most all of the games are mixed. The true WCPs, IMO, are the guys who play in those games and are also capable of playing in the biggest PL/NL games as well as faring quite well in tourneys.

Having not played at those levels, I'm not sure what the difference is between the top players at the 3-6 level and the top guys at the 4k/8k level. I would love for someone who plays the top "regular" games like snakehead or someone like Zee who has played in all of these games to talk about what in their opinion is the difference between the following categories of players:

a) The best 80-160/100-200 players
b) The best 300-600/400-800 players
c) The best 1k-2k/4k-8k players

I have some degree of sense of the difference between the first group and the second group - a big part of it is of course being proficient in multiple games. I have little idea what separates b) from c) and how much of it is purely a bankroll/risk-tolerance issue.

[Sponger15SB]

hmm, ok well out of the 50,000,000 americans who have played poker, how many are WCPs, i think that would give me a good idea how how to guess.

if you say 100, well then we could probably name 70 of those right now and then just figure out what games/limits they play and then give a generalization, but if you said 500+, then we are screwed.

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
A true WCP can play many kinds of poker well, adjusting to different strucutres and betting limits quicker than other specialists. The person also can thrive in shorthanded and full games, of any structure. It doesn't matter what the game is, hold em, stud, or draw, limit or NL/PL, the WCP can beat the game. They just understand the mechanics of poker, what their opposition thinks, choosing spots, and good game selection, which can be identified very quickly. This last point is the most important, BTW, and is not just looking at the pot size. Frequently, the best games appear to have no action, while the worst games have pretty big pots.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this definition, and Diablo's, are probably the closest, in my mind, to the true meaning of WCP. Since that is a very subjective definition (I have never seen WCP defined in any definitve text), I am just basing it on the definition I have in my own head /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

I would say a WCP is very well rounded. Naturally, like everyone else, he is going to have his "A" game and his not-so "A" game, lol. He might be a tad weaker in tourneys than cash games. He might kill the highest limits in some cardrooms, but when he plays below that level, he might need a few rounds to adjust to the lower limit. He's not perfect, after all.

Someone like Jennifer Harman, who took a ten minute tutorial in 2-7 Draw, having never played a Draw tourney in her life, then went on to win the WSOP bracelet, could be considered a WCP. She can usually play any game, at any limit, and holds her own in tourneys as well.

Daniel Negreanu, for obvious reasons.

Ted Forrest, who candidly admits that HE is not his "A" game, but still went to the trouble to run millions of computer simulations in the '80's to improve his game, is my definition of a WCP. He took a break from the tourney circuit for almost ten years, only to come back and win two bracelets this year, as well as placing highly and winning so many large tourneys. On the flip side, he is over at Bellagio buying in for $10 million to play HU with Andy Beal whenever Beal requests a game. He knows his weaknesses, yet works diligently to overcome them by studying. He is simply unstoppable in Stud games, playing pretty tightly. Then he switches completely in HE, sometimes classified as almost a maniac. His ability to adjust is incredible.

Some players that are fantastic in certain areas, yet horribly lacking in others I would not classify as WCP.

Obviously Phil Hellmuth is one of them. Gus Hansen, TJ Cloutier, Chris Ferguson, and lots of cash game players who couldn't hang in a $25 buy-in tourney to save their lives, but regularly play in the highest limit, toughest cash games around.

Just my 2 cents, and definitely a subjective account, at best.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif
www.felicialee.net (http://www.felicialee.net)

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
hmm, ok well out of the 50,000,000 americans who have played poker, how many are WCPs, i think that would give me a good idea how how to guess.

if you say 100, well then we could probably name 70 of those right now and then just figure out what games/limits they play and then give a generalization, but if you said 500+, then we are screwed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

I don't know what levels you play at, but unless you're regularly beating a 1-2 or higher game, I don't see how you plan to make any type of reasonable guess as to what the real difference is between the regulars in the Commerce 3-6 games and the regulars in the 1k/2k and higher games.

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously Phil Hellmuth is one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, i'll bite. is he?

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously Phil Hellmuth is one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, i'll bite. is he?

[/ QUOTE ]

I said he was one of those who was NOT a WCP. No way, no how, IMO.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ulysses]

One indication that you might be a WCP is when someone like Ray Zee mentions you in a book when talking about tough players one might find in the bigger games.

[AJo Go All In]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=plnlpoker&Number=85403 7&Forum=

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clarkmeister and Dynasty are WCP.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Neither of us are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither of them. ClarkNasty is clearly a WCP.

[AJo Go All In]

right, my mistake. i agree

[Ulysses]

I'm curious. What about his game made you put Gus Hansen on your (admittedly v. subjective) list of non-WCP players?

[J.A.Sucker]

A main difference in the 100 and the bigger games is that the 100 game is usually full or full-ish. The bigger games aren't, and of you know this, of course. This is a big difference. Further, many bigger games are mixed games. That said, I don't think that you have to play a huge game to be a WCP. There are lots of other factors that could make even the toughest players settle in a little below the biggest games, most notably bankroll requirements and the quality of the game. For instance, when I was at the Commerce about a month ago, Snakehead was probably playing the most profitable game in the house, and it was 200-400 stud, not the bigger games. This should say a lot.

Also, with regards to tournaments, I think that most strong players could do very well in tournaments; it's just not that hard to adjust that way, while it's much harder to for tournament specialists to go the other way.

As for a role model of players, I'd take either Zee's or "Action" Dan Harrington's careers any time.

[J.A.Sucker]

I don't know any decent cash game player who wouldn't destroy $25 dollar tournaments.

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious. What about his game made you put Gus Hansen on your (admittedly v. subjective) list of non-WCP players?

[/ QUOTE ]
Gus doesn't seem to be able to adjust to cash games very well. I've only watched him play a handful of times, but he just can't seem to hang with the high limit cash game players well enough to be an overall winner. He gets frustrated, he loses big pots that he I doubt he should have been involved in, in the first place. By trying to play cash games like a NLHE tourney, he seems to get crushed.

While his style suits tourneys, especially NLHE tourneys, he doesn't adjust enough for other games, other tourneys, nothing. He uses that same ram & jam style for any game. He can't seem to start check/calling in a Stud 8 cash game when he might overwhelmingly be beat. He keeps firing, and getting whip sawed in the middle. He can't just give the hand up, he sees the river when he has little to no possible way to win, in a multi-way pot. For whatever reason, he just can't grasp the thought that he might be beat.

Maybe with age and maturity, he will adjust. Like I said, and you said, this is sooooo subjective. For one, I have only watched him play a handful of times, both tourneys and cash games. Also, things I have heard about his play are coming from other sources, and while they are credible sources, this is still secondhand. I cannot base everything I hear as fact, nor can I judge his play on the handful of times I have watched him live. He might have been running very badly, steaming, tilting away his money. Who knows.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know any decent cash game player who wouldn't destroy $25 dollar tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is this one guy I know, he is a fantastic cash game player. He plays full-time and plays at mid to high limit games. I have played in several tourneys with him, usually low buy-in tourneys. He just cannot adjust. He is a fantastic guy, so don't ask for a name /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I think he COULD beat tourneys if he wanted to, but he just doesn't have any interest in them whatsoever, and ends up making comments like, "Well, it's time to go home," while pushing in with some cheese. Or, "I need to get this over with," while calling all-in with the losing hand. I think he KNOWS how to play a tournament. I think he could crush them, if he had the desire, but his lack of interest keeps him from winning. He makes some really, really strange plays, and I think that is just out of boredom.

I find myself doing that in cash games. That is when I cash out. I so rarely play cash games anymore, and I find that I am not nearly as able to adjust to them as I once was. I am in no way a WCP, but I just wanted to give my own personal observation, as well.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[La Brujita]

I think this is a very interesting thread. I have not really played with any WCPs unless you consider Tosh to my left yesterday one /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

One place I think there might be room for an argument is whether you need to be proficient at multiple games to be considered a WCP. I would certainly agree that being proficient at numerous games is clearly better than being a specialist. But what I want to suggest is the following (just as a counterargument):

Zinedine Zidane can't score goals that well but might be the most brilliant footballer of our generation. The top litigator in the country probably could not understand the finer points of real estate law but would anyone doubt these two would be considered world class?

I guess my point in a way has to do with the availability of the games. If you can always find a holdem game at the dollar amount that maximizes your earn I am not 100% sure it is relevent whether or not you can play Omaha (leaving aside the mixed game argument-which is a good one).

Best regards

[Ulysses]

This is the problem w/ this hearsay stuff. I've been told that Gus (along w/ Ivey and Dan N.) has been one of the winners in the big-big game for a while. Of course, this comes from not those players, but from people who have seen them play the big game while they were playing a 1-2 or something or from people who have heard it from someone else who presumably has good info. While I suspect both your sources and mine are similarly credible, doesn't sound like either of us are hearing the info straight from the people who play in the game. The only person who I have heard from enough different sources to be pretty sure about is Barry Greenstein. So, besides him, I really have no idea who's really beating those big games. I am kinda curious, though.

[Ulysses]

Here's my simple counter to your examples, Brujita. Zidane can play and dominate at the highest level of his sport without needing to be a top-flight striker. An attorney can be at the top of his field by being a top civil litigator, but he might be completely unable to mount a strong criminal defense or put together a complex securities contract. However, the top attorneys aren't "all-around" attorneys who can do everything well.

On the other hand, the biggest games around these days are largely mixed games. So, if you're going to play in the biggest games against the toughest competition, you're going to be playing a variety of games. Thus, I feel a WCP must be proficient in multiple games.

If there were no such thing as mixed games and the highest poker game spread were 1k-2k, and there existed similar amounts of 1k-2k games in HE, Omaha, Stud, etc., then I think it would be fair to say that there could be WCPs who focused on each of those games and whether one chose to focus or be an "all-around" player would simply be a matter of personal preference.

Anyway, I don't think that was terribly well-stated, but hopefully you get my point.

[pete fabrizio]

I'd say anyone that can regularly beat a typical $300-600 game for 1SB/hr+ (or the equivalent) is world class.

[JTG51]

The only person who I have heard from enough different sources to be pretty sure about is Barry Greenstein. So, besides him, I really have no idea who's really beating those big games. I am kinda curious, though.

I assume it's a pretty small group of players that play in the really, really big games, and they're mostly top level, nearly evenly matched pros? If so, it seems entirely possible to me that there could be a very small number of winners.

[J_V]

Others on 2+2 I would consider World Class are Eugeenel and mikelow.

[La Brujita]

I completely get your point, for some reason I thought people also played huge non mixed games. I mainly thought so since I thought the game at the Hustler with Larry Flynt was 7cs only.

If all the huge games are mixed I have to switch my opinion, although I still think you could be a world class player playing just tourneys if you were able to earn as much as you did in a ring game.

Although I am now confusing myself a bit, since I am not sure if it is all about how much you earn or how well you do as compared to the competition. In other words, if you only play tournaments and the great players win x with an average finish of y, and you consistently crush those results you may be a WCP.

I guess to me this is somewhat analagous to arguing whether clay court specialists are world class tennis players. Two arguments against are (i) of the four majors only one is on clay and (ii) the significant clay court season only lasts a few months.

In some way the discussion of knowing holdem only gets to point (ii) above with respect to whether you can always find big games.

[J_V]

You are greatly underestimating Gus Hansen's abilities. He is highly respected in both cash games and tournies. Lumping him in as a tourney pro that sucks at most everything else would be misguided from what I have heard.

[J_V]

Yeah, I'd pitch in 100 labatt blues to get that answer from Ray. If we all chip in enough, he might poke his head out.

[J_V]

I don't really buy the notion that a WCP has to settle in any games but the biggest. And you mentioned good game selection as a characteristic of a WCP, but I don't agree.

Game selection should have nothing to do w/ determing WCP.

We are judging on the basis of poker talent. Michael Jordan would not have been more WCP if he only chose to play the Clippers. What a gay analogy..lol.

But you get my point, we are not judging on who is the most money savvy poker player, we are judging on who is the best.

Settling at a lower limit w/ softer competition is prudent for many players that need the money, but in the purest sense of the game, we should try to beat the highest games we can find.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess to me this is somewhat analagous to arguing whether clay court specialists are world class tennis players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your soccer and attorney analogies were a little off the mark. This analogy is perfect.

Yes, Flynt has a huge Stud game. I don't know who all the regulars are, but if someone was a stud specialist who beat that huge game as well as the biggest stud games whenever/wherever they went, but he wasn't able to beat the 1k/2k and higher mixed games (or even a 300-600 mixed game), would he be a WCP? I dunno, but I do know he'd be rich and one helluva poker player.

I think that is almost directly analogous to your clay court example.

[DanS]

[ QUOTE ]
Clarkmeister and Dynasty are WCP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without having read the other responses, and having donned my flame retardant suit, I'll say this. Clark may be WCP... Dynasty is not.

Dan

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hmm, ok well out of the 50,000,000 americans who have played poker, how many are WCPs, i think that would give me a good idea how how to guess.

if you say 100, well then we could probably name 70 of those right now and then just figure out what games/limits they play and then give a generalization, but if you said 500+, then we are screwed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

I don't know what levels you play at, but unless you're regularly beating a 1-2 or higher game, I don't see how you plan to make any type of reasonable guess as to what the real difference is between the regulars in the Commerce 3-6 games and the regulars in the 1k/2k and higher games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok Diablo, how about this...

everyone tell me the 5 best players at

1. bellagio
2. foxwoods
3. commerce
4. other big casinos

and then say what limits/games they regularly play, and then look at all the numbers to figure out what, on averege are the numbers/games.

i mean this is what part the original question asks

[ QUOTE ]
What limit do you think you should be able to consistantly beat to be considered world class? Should an 80-160 player who can win over a small bet an hour fit into this catagory?

[/ QUOTE ]

right?

---

ok now onto this...

[ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=plnlpoker&Number=85403 7&Forum=

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks a lot [censored]. Instead of just say, not answering him, or saying $50 NL on Party Poker, you chose to try to embarass me by posting one of my strategy questions.

Although this is incredibly funny because "AJo go all in" would have been pretty sound advice given then link you posted.

[Diplomat]

...and I can get the beer cheep. Location, location, location...

-Diplomat

[J.A.Sucker]

I guess this is where we just choose to disagree. I understand your point of view, and maybe I used to share it more in the past, but now, I think it's about the money. The best players find the best games and make the most money. That's it, in my opinion. Holding on to your bankroll is a key point here, and playing too big (especially if the earn is only marginally higher) isn't a good idea for many folks. I'm an ultracompetitive person by nature, but I guess that I just don't care anymore. With poker, just show me the money.

[FeliciaLee]

The big-big game is always head's up, though. I would expect a player like Hansen would run over Beal.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
playing too big (especially if the earn is only marginally higher) isn't a good idea for many folks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. But we're not talking about many folks here. We're talking about WCPs. We're definitely splitting hairs here, but I tend to agree w/ JV on the general point.

I mean, who knows, maybe Barry Greenstein takes a look at the 3/6 game to see if it's really juicy before sitting in the 4k/8k game. But while I don't know, somehow I don't think so.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
The big-big game is always head's up, though. I would expect a player like Hansen would run over Beal.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, by big-big game I didn't mean the Andy Beal HU game. I meant the normal big-big game that Doyle/Forrest/Greenstein/Harmon/Negreanu/Ivey/etc. play in regularly - the 1k/2k to 4k/8k game. I guess the "regular" big-big game as opposed to the "special" big-big game.

[theBruiser500]

"There is this one guy I know, he is a fantastic cash game player. He plays full-time and plays at mid to high limit games. I have played in several tourneys with him, usually low buy-in tourneys. He just cannot adjust. He is a fantastic guy, so don't ask for a name "

I don't understand, if you gave out his name would he be hurt or offended? Is this a secret of his game that no one can know about?

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, by big-big game I didn't mean the Andy Beal HU game. I meant the normal big-big game that Doyle/Forrest/Greenstein/Harmon/Negreanu/Ivey/etc. play in regularly - the 1k/2k to 4k/8k game. I guess the "regular" big-big game as opposed to the "special" big-big game.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh, this game. Well, I have never seen it played full. I have only seen up to six players at any time, but I don't live in Vegas, I'm just there quite a bit. Whenever I've sweated the table (which can be tough, because the floorpeople are always trying to get me to move), Gus is losing. That doesn't mean he's always losing, it's just what I've seen. I would expect he would do well in a short game vs. a full ring.

When I watched him play at the Nugget, he was doing very badly in a full ring.

I know this doesn't mean anything at all. Zip, zero. It is just what I've witnessed. As far as what I've heard, well, that is worse, naturally. Lots of people could be bitter after losing large amounts to Gus. Also, people tend to see someone who has high variance as either being a big winner, or a big loser. In this case, seeing Gus down quite a lot more than a tighter player could give them the impression that he is a losing cash game player. I don't want to speculate on any rumors floating around, I only know what I personally witnessed.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand, if you gave out his name would he be hurt or offended? Is this a secret of his game that no one can know about?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not interested in gossiping about people or spreading rumors behind their backs. It is one thing to use an example in context of a conversation, but there is no reason to name names, IMO. I hate it when people are constantly gossiping about me, and spreading false (or true) rumors, so why would I do it to them?

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SpiderMnkE]

Where do these world class players learn/discuss poker. Do they just talk among themselves and quietly gain knowledge in leaps and bounds above the rest of the world.

Somehow I doubt they are lurking around our precious forum.. it just boggles me that these guys can become so good all by themselves.. they musn't

[FeliciaLee]

[ QUOTE ]
Where do these world class players learn/discuss poker. Do they just talk among themselves and quietly gain knowledge in leaps and bounds above the rest of the world.

Somehow I doubt they are lurking around our precious forum.. it just boggles me that these guys can become so good all by themselves.. they musn't

[/ QUOTE ]
I only know what I have read or heard. I have tried to get Forrest to talk more about himself, but he is a vault. He is not the type to discuss much of anything.

From what I've heard, in the '80's he got ahold of Caro's poker program and ran millions of simulations on his PC while he was out playing 4/8 in Vegas. Perhaps he just felt he didn't have a good enough grasp of HE like he did Stud. Just getting him to admit that Stud games were his expert games was a feat in itself. He doesn't like to talk about himself, and always tries to veer the conversation back to the other person (at least, in my conversations with him).

Lederer is the same way. He likes to discuss hands, the mathmatics and maybe even the thought process that goes into the play of a hand, but he doesn't like to talk about himself much. I could go on and on. It's hard to get these players to come out of their shells. I am very outgoing, and not shy in the least, so starting a conversation with them (usually when we're NOT at a table together) is no problem. Getting them to talk poker in any detail, is another story. Juanda is friendly and outgoing. He will discuss any play, any hand intimately.

The top women players are generally a little more open about discussing what is going on at the very highest levels. Who is in the game, who is out. Who is winning, who is broke. Why they make the plays that they make.

From everything I've observed, the reason that the top players don't discuss strategy so much in public, yet away from the tables, is just due to talking about other things.

Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[mike l.]

my guess is that a few (meaning like 10 or so) of you would do very well in the big ($XXX-$XXX) games and even the $Xk-$Xk games if you had the bankroll and at least a few months of experience and probably make a bitch of a few of the name players in these games. i would not be one of those players but i aspire to beating the 80 and up regularly at some point in the next 3 years and im pretty sure that despite my awfulness i will do so. <insert quip about right 3 bbs an hour here>

[astroglide]

i think the only wcp on this board is ray zee

[andyfox]

My definition of a WCP is not somebody who could beat the biggest games in the world, but somebody who has. Zee is the man.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not interested in gossiping about people or spreading rumors behind their backs. It is one thing to use an example in context of a conversation, but there is no reason to name names, IMO. I hate it when people are constantly gossiping about me, and spreading false (or true) rumors, so why would I do it to them?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From what I've heard, in the '80's he got ahold of Caro's poker program and ran millions of simulations on his PC while he was out playing 4/8 in Vegas. Perhaps he just felt he didn't have a good enough grasp of HE like he did Stud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant the normal big-big game that Doyle/Forrest/Greenstein/Harmon/Negreanu/Ivey/etc. play in regularly - the 1k/2k to 4k/8k game.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they play in that game regularly, without going broke, they must all be world-class. I feel bad for the "etc." though /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[TimTimSalabim]

You can't really rely on hearsay or anecdotes of well, I saw this player a few times and they looked like they were playing badly. Because most of us couldn't even comprehend a WCP's play if we watched it, because they are thinking on so many levels, particularly if they're playing against another WCP. Therefore, you can only go by results. So, it's obvious who the WC tournament players are, and as for the cash games, it's anybody's guess (unless you work for the IRS).

[kenewbie]

I'm a World Class Moron. Does that count?

k

[Tosh]

I think I would agree with that.

[pudley4]

POTD

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[mike l.]

sponger ive read your posts for awhile now and i dont wish to get in any flame wars with you.

but i have a question. how old are you and where do you live? cause from your handle it sounds like youre a 15 year old bodyboarder from santa barbara. am i right?