How do you know if you are good or your opponents are bad?

[DRKEVDC]

How does one go about evaluating how good they are?

If it is by money won then is it due to that players good play or the opponents poor play?

Is it by playing style?

I see plays by other players that is so bad it makes me laugh. Am I good because I take advantage of their bad play with patience and well timed aggression or are they just going to give the money away to someone and I am the lucky one that time?

How does one know I would be interested to hear.

[baumer]

you identify who is paying attention and who is not paying attention at the table.

when you can tell (within reason) what kind of hands your opponents may be holding.

when you can reason why your opponents made certain plays

when you can tell if someone is only playing their cards and not really "adapting" to other's play. (asleep at the switch)

when you can tell if someone is basing their decisions on relevant criteria or not (pot odds, opponents past play, position)

learn proper poker strategy and then take notice to those who are playing close to it.

this all applies to live limit hold'em than other games, since in NL people can play really stupid losing little bits of money then get paid off when someone who thought they were bad pays them off with a marginal call.

once you can base your decisions taking all this into account then you can have an idea of your place at the table (usually in the top 3-4 if you can maintain concentration).

[phish]

'Good' and 'Bad' are not absolute terms. Both are relative. You win when you play against players worse than you, and lose when you play against people better than you. Many players can be great playing at low limits where their opponents are passive and loose and then be a sucker when they try to move up and play the same style that was successful earlier. Some guys play great when playing 150/300 but when they drop down to play 50/100 play like a moron cause the stakes are too small. It's all relative.
Personally, I'd like to play against the worst players in the world. I don't care how 'good' I am (let the guys with ego problems worry about stuff like that), I just want to win as much as I can as fast as I can with minimal risk.

[Mike Gallo]

Welcome aboard.

Look at your results after 2,000 hours, if your beating the game for a big bet an hour, your playing better then your opponents.

[Cerril]

Luck aside, the worst player at the table is giving his money away and everyone is getting a share. The second worst player is giving away a portion of what he's winning to the others, and so on.

Chance of course alters who really ends up with the money but as far as theoretical dollars go that's how it works.

But as far as 'knowing' if someone is routinely getting involved in a majority of the pots at a full table you can be pretty sure any money he's winning is due more to luck than skill. Likewise with anyone who's playing more than a small subgroup of the hands he's dealt (when you see a guy come in for a raise after a limper and show down T8o or something similar at just about any table and you have a good idea that wasn't an anomalous hand).

Once you get past the obvious stuff you have to know enough about good poker to answer your own question, since it comes down to playing better than the rest of the people at the table.

Same with being 'good'. The definition there is pretty much up to the individual player, but if you're only concerned about being good enough to have a better than average shot of coming away up money, it's mostly a matter of seeing the obvious mistakes your opponents are making. <tries desperately to avoid the quote> If you're spotting enough of them, you can be pretty sure you're good enough for the table you're at.