How does one know when one is good?

[LockLow34]

Simple question - how does one know they're a good poker player as opposed to just having a good run of cards for an extended period of time?

[nuclear500]

I don't think one can ever judge themselves as "good" except over a long period of time - and then defining "good" can mean a lot of different things and short of going into various rhetorical situational analysis', I'll leave it at that.

Only other players can judge someone as "good" in the short term - in the long run you can only judge yourself as "good" if you have maintained a consistent standing within the 'community' in terms of either winnings or showings. There are probably a lot of players people don't really consider "good" because they have not truly scored big in a large tournament, but they consistently out last 80-85% of the field and are so consistent in their Live games that once you know enough about the player, you can honestly say they are "good" and I think its "good" players who, when the cards fall with the right breeze, they become "excellent" for that short burst that gains them the spotlight.

[r3vbr]

I'm a good player (as in way better than average)

I only played about 150.000~200.000 hands in my Poker Life (multitabling 5 tables the last 7 months) but I seriously doubt that If i continue to play for all my life I can someday lose what I have already won.

[semipro]

Good is such a subjective title in poker. Even win rate is not a great indicator of good, as one may encounter an unusual run of cards to skew the results.

The only "good" that I would consider or even allow to think of myself is relating to confidence.

[Rhone]

I see two questions here. One is what constitutes a good player, and two is how do you measure your performance against whatever standard you come up with for one.

You can find opinions on both questions by searching these boards. Most people seem to think a good player wins at a greater than 2BB/100 winrate. Many, of course, disagree.

In terms of measurement, you can never be totally sure what your true winrate is. However, if you keep your stats in pokertracker you can easily run a confidence interval. This will tell you what range your true winrate falls within, with whatever level of confidence you like. So you could ask within what range can I be 95% certain my true winrate falls. Unless you have a very large number of hands, this range will be pretty wide.

Search the pokertracker forums for the phrase confidence interval and you'll find a good post telling you exactly how to go about doing this.

Rhone.

[Paul2432]

Read this forum a lot. If you find yourself holding your own in the threads you are probably a good player. If you frequently don't follow the logic, or disgree with the expert consensus, you're probably not that good.

Similarly, try the hand quizzes in SSHE.

Results aren't the best judge of a player because they take so long to be meaningful. How a player thinks through a hand can be discovered fairly quickly.

Paul

[TheRake]

Smart people know they're smart.

Do dumb people know they're dumb?

TheRake

[Jdanz]

You can run confidence intervals with your BB/100 stats and your standard deviation. All you need is those two stats and the number of hands you've played to determine the likelyhood you are within any two winrates.

Personally i'd say anyone who is a winning player (probably only 10% long term players are) is a good poker player. Most people on this board suggest that 2 BB/100 is very reasonable, and i agree, however i'd define that as very good (at least compared to the whole poker population) yet pretty easy to accomplish if you're willing to put in the work.

I'd consider anything above 3BB over the long term (75k+ hands) to be a pretty damn likely indicator that you're a very solid player.

How to tell if you're great? If you make the correct play almost all the time. It doesn't really matter what happens with the money. And it's really hard to tell.

-JDanz

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
Smart people know they're smart.

Do dumb people know they're dumb?

TheRake

[/ QUOTE ]

precisely.

[bicyclekick]

A good poker player is one who knows he has room to grow and takes taht, strives to improve his play and fix his errors. The last qualification is he must be good at fixing the errors.

I suppose they need to score well, too, but I think that goes with good play.

[sublime]

when used to describe a poker player the term "good" is very subjective.

[Cerril]

Nah, dumb people know they're smart too. Knowledge, or rather certainty, is such a tricky thing. A lot of smart people don't know they're smart, at least they aren't certain.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
Smart people know they're smart.

Do dumb people know they're dumb?

TheRake

[/ QUOTE ]

No they don't.

Unskilled and unaware (http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html)

[Rasputin]

[ QUOTE ]
In 1995, McArthur Wheeler walked into two Pittsburgh banks and robbed them in broad daylight, with no visible attempt at disguise. He was arrested later that night, less than an hour after videotapes of him taken from surveillance cameras were broadcast on the 11 o'clock news. When police later showed him the surveillance tapes, Mr. Wheeler stared in incredulity. "But I wore the juice," he mumbled. Apparently, Mr. Wheeler was under the impression that rubbing one's face with lemon juice rendered it invisible to videotape cameras

[/ QUOTE ]

Dumb may be dumb, but it is often laugh out loud funny.

[citizenkn]

People on this forum always talk about how bad it is to be results oriented, and that's the same case here. Having a good win rate does not necessarily mean you are a good player.

You know you are a good player when you meet two criteria:

1. You have the ability to recognize flaws in the way you play the game
2. You have the skill and discipline to fix those flaws.

I find that some of the worst players I know are the ones who always think they are playing correctly.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]

Nah, dumb people know they're smart too. Knowledge, or rather certainty, is such a tricky thing. A lot of smart people don't know they're smart, at least they aren't certain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. The dumbest people think they're brilliant, and many of the smartest are smart enough to know how smart they're not, if that makes any sense.

[semipro]

Huh?

[LockLow34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Smart people know they're smart.

Do dumb people know they're dumb?

TheRake

[/ QUOTE ]

No they don't.

Unskilled and unaware (http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

The corollary to this can be summed up simply as "smart people know what they don't know."

[LockLow34]

[ QUOTE ]
People on this forum always talk about how bad it is to be results oriented, and that's the same case here. Having a good win rate does not necessarily mean you are a good player.

You know you are a good player when you meet two criteria:

1. You have the ability to recognize flaws in the way you play the game
2. You have the skill and discipline to fix those flaws.

I find that some of the worst players I know are the ones who always think they are playing correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also seems to me that being good includes being able to judge another's play as good or bad. (Perhaps better terminology, such as skilled and unskilled would apply?)

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
People on this forum always talk about how bad it is to be results oriented, and that's the same case here. Having a good win rate does not necessarily mean you are a good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, if "good" is roughly synonymous with "profitable", then you can always rely on the ole mean w/95% confidence interval. Well, a large percentage of the time, at least /images/graemlins/smile.gif. If you're sharp you can work in other factors, but I think your mean/95%CI is pretty reliable.

[frank_iii]

[ QUOTE ]
The corollary to this can be summed up simply as "smart people know what they don't know."

[/ QUOTE ]

And the wise don't care either way.

[Lawrence Ng]

It's all relative.

[Dav123]

[ QUOTE ]
How does one know when one is good?

[/ QUOTE ]

When one stops referring to oneself in the 3rd person, one has taken the first step toward being good.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Well said. The dumbest people think they're brilliant, and many of the smartest are smart enough to know how smart they're not, if that makes any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]


It does and I agree.



[ QUOTE ]
The corollary to this can be summed up simply as "smart people know what they don't know."


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree again.


Head to the good ol' B&M room and you'll find that most players think they are good....but are incorrect in their self-assessment.


Yesterday my Dad sent me an e-mail saying that his golfing-buddy considered himself a decent poker player and was interested in internet-poker and wanted my opinion on what sites were good.

Since my Dad doesn't play poker he had no way of knowing whether this guy really IS good other than just the guy's general intelligence (and the guy's background in financial advising and investing).
I sent my Dad the general advice (get a neteller acct, party has the most players, stars has good tournaments, etc etc) and also mentioned that probably 80-90% of bad poker players think they are better than average.

[TheRake]

I just felt like answering a question with another question. Kind of like a Zen thing or an ESPN commercial /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Anyway, some of you got the point I was trying to make. I think Good players know when they are good players and more importantly they know why they are good. The problem with all this is that almost everyone thinks they are good and the ones who don't think they are good are probably better than most who think they are. Phew that was a mouthful.