Mason plays $30 - 60

Mason Malmuth plays $30 - 60 Holdem. He has said that his circumstances may soon allow him to play higher. However as far as I know he plays only $30-60.


Roy Cooke plays $30 - 60 Holdem. I played in Vegas at Bellagio's for 8 months straight to years ago. I never saw Cooke play above $30 - 60.


Cissy Bottoms plays $30 - 60 Holdem. I've not seen her in the bigger Vegas games either.


I read Sklansky's definition of a World Class player. He's wrong. These 3, in my opinion, prove him wrong. they are all world class players.


One of the most important ingredients, a necessity, for playing high limit poker is Bankroll. Mason has said that bankroll requirements have kept him from playing higher. I believe him. The other two may have other reasons for not moving up, I don't know.


I don't believe we've seen an accurate deinition of "a world class" poker player. Maybe there isn't one. There certainly are an order of magnitude more mid limit games spread in the world than high limit. I guess I don't understand why a mid limit winning poker player is not considered "world class".


Vince

Vince writes: "I guess I don't understand why a mid limit winning poker player is not considered "world class. "


If these regular mid limit players are considered "world class", then what do we call players that are better? Or are you saying that players like Lenny Martin or Dan Negreanu and others are not better. They just have the bankroll?


"One of the most important ingredients, a necessity, for playing high limit poker is Bankroll. "


Ok. Say one of the players mentioned were bankrolled. Could they win at the highest levels? Are their skillsets transferable?


Now if 30-60 is all there is to being world class, I regret the several now serious poker players (two of whom live in my house) that I brought into poker.


World class means to me that you can play any table in your field and not feel outclassed. This doesnt mean you should play there, that's bad game selection. But it means you should be able to hold your own.


Pick your game. Take the nine best players in the world and sit in the last seat. Can you hold your own? (Not many could beat the rake in such a game, if anybody). If you can't hold your own, then you are not world class.


Vince, don't you think serious poker is a waste of effort if all you can ever hope to make is 60 or so an hour? I think that is just fine if that's a fall back. but not as a fixed ceiling.


Do you think this forum assist someone on a trek to being a great player?

Mason does fit my definition Vince. Read it again.

I reread David's definition. Yes he does include players of Mason's ilk as world class. Sorry, David, but now we must address backdoors question. Does the prospect of only earning $60/hour make poker a worthwhile endeavor?


Backdoor, I can only answer for Vince. I never had any goal other than being a consistent winning poker player when I began playing. I have not altered that goal much in the years I have been playing. I would like to be both a winning live poker player and a winning tournament player. Right now I can say that this is the case for bothgoals. I am a winning live poker player as well as a winning tournament poker player.


I cannot tell you my win rate for live or tournament. It's positive is all that I am sure of. For tournaments it is extremely positive for this year. But i really don't care what it is I play to win. If I average 1 bb/hr or .5 bb/hr, only means that I may need to improve my game if I'm at the lower number.


If you told these two friends of yours that there was fortunes to be made at poker I hope you explained to them how to go about making that fortune. And if you have please let the rest of us in on it. I might just change my goals.


vince

Hm. I sat in a 40-80 game with Mason the weekend before the world series, in the Mirage. The game did have an uberfish, which is probably why he was in the game -- it certainly was why *I* was in the game.


So he's clearly not restricted only to 30-60.


- target

Vince, if a middle limit player can be considered "world class", what about a low limit player? I know several guys in Vegas who make between one and two big bets per hour playing $4-$8. Why can't we have a "world class" $4-$8 player?


I have asked some of the "world class" $4-$8 players why they don't play higher. They tell me they just don't have the bankroll.

when backdoor asks the question are players like lenny martin and dan negreanu not better or do they just have bigger bankrolls. i think the answer is there not necessarily better just becuase they play bigger. just because someone plays bigger than someone else doesn't mean there better. you have to judge the player. not the limit he or she plays.

to respond to jim. if lenny martin lost all his money in the stock market tomorrow or some business venture. and now was broke and forced to play 4-8. would he not be world class anymore?

"Vince, if a middle limit player can be considered "world class", what about a low limit player? "


I don't know. Badger seems to think so. If Lenny Martin or Daniel Negreanu or David Sklansky were to play 4 - 8 with your winning 4 - 8 players who would have a substantial edge? Maybe "world class" has not been defined well enouh to make that determination. I will definitely yield to you with regards to low limit and mid limit poker for the following reason. Besides bankroll and knowledge and talent there is also a "balls" factor. Some big time players are able to overcome short comings in one area with "big balls". They might be cautious but they are never afraid. I get this impression whenever I talk with Daniel Negreanu. It seems to me that guys like him do not fear going broke. I believe this gives some players without a big bankroll what they need to play higher limits than what most of us would consider optimal.


Until I see a definition of "world class" that I can live with I believe I'll just get out of this discussion. BTW- Nice taliking to you Jim.


vince

Vince,


I think that this:


"I read Sklansky's definition of a World Class player. He's wrong."


Contradicts this:


"I don't believe we've seen an accurate definition of "a world class" poker player."


If we haven't seen an "accurate definition," then how can David be wrong?


Further, how can someone ever be wrong when making up their own definitions? It is routine in lofty discourse to define key terms and then procede under the presumption that the reader will play along with the definition. Otherwise, no meaningful communication is possible. As evidence, note that this thread quickly became a semantical debate.


Over time, terms that were initially hazy can become rigid, but only after one definition is agreed on. "World class poker player" is apparently still in the earlier, flexible, needs-to-be-defined by each user, phase.


"I guess I don't understand why a mid limit winning poker player is not considered 'world class'."


Here's a possible reason, using me as an example. The only reason I win is because I make 'better' decisions than my opponents, on average. That I happen to win says very little about my ability compared to rest of the poker world. It just means I'm fortunate to sit with this batch of opponents.


If seated with Vinces and Davids and Masons and Daniels and TJ's, I don't think I'd fair well at all, but then, I wouldn't play. Which reminds me, isn't game-selection a universally agreed upon criteria of poker smarts? Would I move up in rank just because my game selection is good?


(And it is. It's very good. One of the few parts of "my game" that I'm consistently happy with. To me, game selection doesn't merely mean staying in the $20-40 because the $40-80 is tough today, though that's an important piece. Game selection is short range AND long. It means (and here comes the term-defining part) city selection, tournament selection, day-to-day game selection, quitting when faltering, not going to the casino unless rested and spunky, etc. It's just as much a function of 'know thyself' as it is 'know the opponents.')


Tommy, an area-code class player, so far

Being a "world class player" refers more to the quality of one's plays whatever limits he/she plays against any and I mean any player. Don't confuse playing at a higher limit with "world class". Anyone with enough bankroll and/or guts can do so. Important is can he win consistently in the long run? Of course, there are less tough players at the lower levels because these guys move up as they improve their plays. Nevertheless,I'm sure some of these guys can be "world class" given the opportunity.

If Lenny lost all of his money in the stock market, he would still be a world class player. He could probably get easily staked in some middle limit game like $30-$60 where he would win enough money over a period of time to bankroll him into the higher limit games. It would take time but he would get back eventually.

In refining your definition you might have to segregate the game specialists from those that play everything. From what I've seen most of the higher limit play is at mixed games. David's "team HORSE" post to RGP a few weeks back plays into this. How do you choose to rate somebody who has a good win rate at say 100-200 HE but kills the 300-600 HOSE game because they are strong across games? Personally I'd tend to rate the mixed game player a better _poker_ player.

I believe the very best 4-8/6-12 players will average much above 2 BB per hour if they have reasonable game selection skills and opportunity. Below I argued that the best mid-limit players should be considered world class. I don't think the same is true of the best low limit players since they rarely face tough competition. OTOH, I doubt that most world class high stakes players could win as much money in a juicy 4-8 game than the best low limit players (at least not before an adjustment period).

"Personally I'd tend to rate the mixed game player a better _poker_ player"


Me, I rate top Stud players as the best poker players.


Vince

the point i was making jim is you could be world class and be plyaing 4-8. not saying there are. buts its possible due to outside circumstances. could have major gambling leaks or whatever. you seem to judge a book by its cover.


as for the other comment about dan negreanu not caring if he goes broke becuase he's got balls. there is some truth in that i would think. but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a better player than lets say cissy. it has to do with personalities. daniel likes to live life on the edge, whereas maybe cissy doesn't. so he plays in the biggest games he can find. risking possibly going broke, or becoming very wealthy. and she's happy playing in a limit that is comfortable for her. a more stable life for her. btw, not saying one of them is better than the other. just pointing out that just becuse one plays in bigger games doesn't necessarily make them better.

For a very long time (too long - I was unwarrantedly paranoid) I never played a hand of casino poker in a game higher than 5-10; I was "convinced" the larger games were almost all rigged. Either the entire table was in cahoots, or the dealer was manipulating the deck.


Go ahead and laugh - I do when I think about those days - but these concerns did keep me out of games that I should have been playing in.


I AM NOWHERE NEAR WORLD CLASS, and I am limited (to a minor extent) by bankroll considerations -


HOWEVER,


I do play very well, and I played very well (granted I have improved over time) when I was spending my time at 3-6 thru 5-10.


Even if money were to one day become a meaningless factor - or if I were to be (and I have received offers) to be staked - there is a "glass ceiling" which I may never permeate.


As we speak I don't play above 20-40, and in truth I am more "comfortable" at 10-20 or 15-30.


I believe I could beat most 30-60 games; bear in mind that I play in on the east coast (A.C.) where these games are usually softer than their Vegas counterparts.


That said, I would likely not beat them for much.


There is very little 40-80 in A.C.


As for the next jump - 50-100 and above - I do not believe I could beat the "regulars", though I suspect my losses would be small. It costs ~ $20 per hour to play in these games; if I confined my play to ring games I doubt my losses would exceed a small bet per hour - 20 in expenses and 30 in being outplayed.


For those interested, I have had no trouble winning the magical "1 BB/hr" at 10-20/15-30, but as I pointed out earlier east coast poker is ALOT softer than Vegas (even more so on weekends) and I am EXTREMELY game selective.


If I do not like what the "red-chip" games have to offer I am sure to be found at 3-6 or 5-10. Luckily, there is almost always some soft action on weekends in A.C. - particularly so during the summer but there is still enough to go around the other nine months.


As is almost always the case, Jim, you hit the nail on the head.


Best wishes -


- J D

I have stated on many occasions that I beat the 3-6 games of A.C. for FAR in excess of 2 BB/hr in spite of both an OBSCENE rake (10% max $4) and a painfully slow paced game (average hands per hour was ~ 27/28) due to the fact that the typical player(s) I faced were not bad - - - they were clueless.


The money was plentiful - I was single at the time with a tiny monthly nut - but your point about my earnings being the result of the [huge] disparity between my skill level and that of my opponents was dead on.


Well done -


- J D