How do YOU know that you're good?

[Acesover8s]

Been on an up and down rollercoaster lately. Dropping 40 big bets in a game, and then turning around and winning a 100 player tournament. Then winning back 20 bets, then losing those back, etc.

I guess I have some issues maintaining confidence through the variances, although I do not feel that it affects my game any.

Beyond keeping good records, how do YOU know that you're a good player? What keeps you sleeping peacefully after burning your chips to the felt?

Thanks

[riffraff]

If you are up over a long term (year+) then I'd say that should help your confidence. Try not and look at the short term, as hard as it is to do sometimes. Sometimes I know when I'm running bad I feel better to see the fish (who sucked out on me several times that session) lose all his chips by the end of the session. I know that doesn't help your own financial situation to have your chips re-distributed over the table in everyone else's stack, but at least you can see that bad play will usually lose if nothing else. The bottom line, however, is the bottom line. If your long-term records show a profit then that should be sufficient. The better you are, the better your hourly win rate should be as well.

[SittingBull]

fluctuations in bankroll.
Over time,if U are a favorite over the field almost every time U play,then U will realize a profit over time.
My personal operational definition of "good player" for a particular division(game,limit,structure) is winning 1BB to 1 1/2 BB per hr. consistently at a B&M after 1000 hours of play and maintaining this average win.

Happy pokering,
Sitting Bull

[Homer]

Bull, do you really think that you have to win more than 1 BB/hr to be considered a "good" player? Do you know of any statistics available that show an approximation of what percentage of players win:

A) >1 BB/hr
B) .5 - 1 BB/hr
C) 0 - .5 BB/hr

My thinking is that I would consider the top 10% of all players to be "good". I have heard that only 5% of players are lifetime winners, so wouldn't that make anyone who can break even or better "good"?

I would consider 0 - .5 BB/hr to be "good", .5 - 1 BB/hr to be "great", and > 1 to be "expert".

I'm curious to hear what others think...

-- Homer

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The 5% figure for lifetime winners out of total players is deceptive. I would guess it includes those who play just for fun in home games, just for fun once a year in casinos, those who play once or twice, lose and are turned off to the game, etc., etc., etc.

In reality, all players are not equal units, and this calculation is comparing apples, oranges, pears and oragutans.

Of course the overall number of players is slanted towards losers, but I, for one, think the number overstates the difficulty of being a long-term winner. Now before anybody jumps down my throat, I'm certainly not saying that being a long-term winner is easy. What I am saying is that there are certain systemic factors that slant the numbers towards the 5%.

1) short-timers who leave behind because they aren't comfortable in the game

2) the usual initial winners, who when they start to lose, blame luck rather than trying to learn how to play better.

3) low-limit winners that try to move up too fast, get discouraged and bust out.

Too make a long story short - how do I know I'm doing well? Aside from the all important bottom line, am I learning from my mistakes? Am I learning how to vary my play? Is my hand reading getting better? Am I staying patient and emotionally detached(here's that Zen thing again)?

This is another reason online play is great. You can download your hand history and debrief your self after a session.

[MRBAA]

I have to drive about 2 hours to a casino to play, so the ride back provides plenty of time to go over hands with my regular playing companion. Many losing (and winning) hands are too simple to even discuss. Others are obviously correct plays. But some are not. After talking things over after a recent session, my friend sent me a list of all the errors he could identify in his play from a 7+ hour sit at 4-8 he. They added up to about 20 bbs! He hadn't played as well as he thought.

I made my own list for my play, mainly at 5-10 stud, and found 3 errors which cost me about 4bb. But I also counted how many excellent starting hands I had (4 in about 6 hours) and how many semi-dead/non-premium starting hands I had (only about another 10) and concluded I'd actually mainly suffered on this trip from sub-par cards.

Over a year, if you feel you are good at a particular game and limit, you should be solidly positive. I know this is the case for both my friend and me. We play for recreation and are always trying to learn new games (in my case, 2-4 and 3-6 he and moving up from 1-3 and 2-4 stud to 5-10, in my friend's case, playing higer he), but in the games we feel we have a handle on, the results are solidly positive.

[Warren Whitmore]

Just to be contrary, I disagree with everyone else. I don't think learning by doing and then measuring your results is a valid idea. Lets say that you are a $10 an hour loser. You play 1000 hours and crunch the numbers to determine this. Congradulations, you just lost 10 grand and you still don't know anymore than what you knew when you started. Try this instead.
1)Find someone you respect and have them critique your play in a constructive sort of way.
2)Take the tests in all of the 2 + 2 books. There are alot of them and they should give you a rough idea of where you are at.
3)Read from poker essays one:Evaluating yourself and your opponants
4)Read from poker essays two:Moving up.

[SittingBull]

DEFINITIONS. Since U have a different definition of "good player" than I do,I can't argue your point.
It's like trying to argue which geometrical system is more accurate,the Euclidean or non-Euclidean system.
Both systems are mathematically valid based upon their individual premises.
Hence,your set of definitions is just as good--if not better--than mine.

Happy pokering,
Sitting Bull

[shades]

It's like trying to argue which geometrical system is more accurate,the Euclidean or non-Euclidean system.

True, both are equally accurate, but for practical purposes, given different situations, one could certainly be more useful than the other. The same of course applies to different definitions of what constitutes a "good" poker player. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[MRBAA]

Warren, I agree with what you're saying. I think self evaluation is critical. Reading and study: critical. Play experience: critical. All I'm saying is that you may THINK you are playing well based on all of the above, but if the results aren't there after a few hundred hours of play, then I think you have to re-examine your strategy.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Ace,

You've started a worthwhile discussion, and I can't add any suggestions about ways to assess your abilities. I do want to make one point. You and everyone else who is concerned about objectively assessing their abilities are FAR ahead of the pack.

Most people don't seriously try to make that assessment. In fact, most people greatly overestimate their abilities, and it costs them a lot of money. If you're trying to measure your abilities, you are unlikely to make that error. The same is true for the people who took the time to add to this thread.

Thank you,

Al

[Bob T.]

Acesover8s,

I think that whatever limits you play at, you need to be able to recognize mistakes that your opponents are making, and be able to translate your opponents mistakes into correct counter tactics which will improve your expected value.

If you don't see your opponents making mistakes that you can recognize and capitalize on, then you aren't good in that game, and in fact you might be in over your head. If you can see their mistakes, but are unable to capitalize on them, you are either running bad, or you aren't as good as you think. I guess it depends on how long this situation exists, before you can determine which it is.

Good Luck,
Play Well,

Bob T.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

One of the ways you can judge your competence is by how others react to you in the game. Do they respect your raises? Do they raise you for a free card to see if you will give it? Do they back down when you put the pressure on them? We are often as others see us. Perception is Reality. I find that the mentor system and this forum are quite helpful in getting reliable feedback on whether I am playing well. OVERALL, I simply try to follow Babe's motto at all times: LGPG /forums/images/icons/grin.gif /forums/images/icons/wink.gif (sorry, couldn't resist that one). Happy Holidays. Babe /forums/images/icons/heart.gif

[bernie]

i think even a good player good show a loss after a few hundred hours. it is possible. it's also possible to have a losing year playing.

i think you can know by how others react to you(as the 'babe' stated) and how you analyze the others games...meaning, if you can find the leaks....of course, some plays may seem like leaks until you learn a little more, but youd be on the right track anyway....

measure how youd have played a hand that another guy had on the table...would you have made/saved more or less with it. and no hindsight allowed, which can be tough if youre not used to it...

some players think theyre good, but they only play a very soft game all the time...which is an illusion...these players really arent that great..not if they cant adjust for different textures...you really only have to play a little tighter than the table to make money on the table, rake aside. learning how to play weak-tighties can be tougher than many think. especially if theyre also calling stations...many complain that they never fold....again, that ol' adjustment thing...

hours to profit results are good, but as you say, you should have an idea a little bit, long before you look at your stats. i couldnt imagine just playing for 500 hours and THEN analyzing my game...that puts you 500 hours behind the better players...

shameless self plug...
couple of my fav quotes i heard on a table about me...

"the game would be better if you changed tables..."
"sure, he has long hair and looks like a rock/bake head, but he's not an idiot..."
"it's mr. tight chips..."

ya learn to smile inside at these lines...

have a good one...

b

http://64.207.13.28/mysmilies/games/diablo/MAGE5.GIF

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi AcesOver8s,
Well, I've never been sure if I'm doing good. Left Vegas for a better career op.

Anyway, what I did do was keep a comprehensive spread sheet with a row for each session, and columns for every important metric I could think of. For example session bank roll, seesion win/loss amount, overall win/loss amount, etc.

Then I graphed out various columns and tried to analyze the trend.

Kept me focused on the bottom line and improving anyway.

Lost that spreadsheet in a disk crash (kept the disk, someday I'll have it retrieved if it's there at all!).

But the trend line was slightly upward, with what looked very much like a sine wave around it that was my total win/loss number. Trend was only about .3 BB/hr upward... close enough to 0 for me to say that I'm not convinced I'm a +EV player.

But that's the truth of it.

Anyway, one thing to watch out for. When I began the spreadsheet and put the first winning streak on it, it looked like I was making major $$$ per hour... until the first good down draft!

So do be careful about your interpretation 'till it's a good and long record.

Sincerely,
AA

[snakehead]

records show only results, which does not mean you are good or bad. this may not be what you want to hear, but if you are asking this question, you are not yet a good player, regardless of your results.

when you are really good, you will be able to analyze your plays, and your opponents' plays. you will know which ones were good and which were bad, and which were just coin flips. you will also be able to tell when you are against an opponent who plays better than you, and who plays bad enough that you should engage them as much as possible. and you will know when the game is worthwhile, and when you should wait for a better opportunity.

finally, you will realize just how silly roy cooke looks when he is staring at you.

[DanS]

Even though I like your attempt at classification, I think your scale can't easily define who is who and what is what. For instance, over a statistically semi-significant period of time, I'm making 1.7 bb/hr at 6-12, and 1.3 bb/hr at 9-18. Does that make me an expert? Hell no! Even though I'm grasping some concepts that would serve me well in 20-40 to 80-160, I don't believe that I have the full battery of skills to beat these games.

I think my point is that it may be correct that a guy beating a 2000-4000 game for 1/4 bb/hr is more than easily definable as an expert.

Comments?

[ResidentParanoid]

Let's go play golf? LGPG?

[ResidentParanoid]

I think this is the best real-time measure. You get my post of the week award.

If you don't see how you're beating the game you're in, you probably aren't beating it. This is besides getting great cards and great flops. Until I started to realize what other players do wrong, I wasn't sure if I was a winning player. At tables I'm comfortable at, I am now pretty sure. I also know to get away from tables where I can't identify any/many players that are making mistakes that I wouldn't make.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

LGPG could be "let's go play golf" /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif but it actually stands for "Look Good, Play Good" --The PokerBabe's motto /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Hotchile]

"overanalysis is the undoing of great progress". You know you are good when people who are trying to make money stop inviting you to play.

Larry

[ResidentParanoid]

Yes, just as good a motto (and also works for golf).

[Webster]

When you sit down at a table and can't figure out who the fish are. It's you!

[Herb N.]

It sounds like you have had some big fluxes.This doesnt mean your playing bad,but mayby your willing to take some big losses for some bigger wins.If you are a good NO great player you will soon be happy with the results of these swings.On the other hand be careful these swings may indicate your playing too many hands without the experance and or skill to make them profitable.