Just how good are they?

[JoeyT]

Not that I plan on becoming a world champion, but this question came up when I was talking with a bunch of friends that are all just getting into poker, and I didn't really know how to answer it.

Just how good are the people that are competing (and making the final table) of the world poker championships, wsop, etc? I guess this question is more directed at the no limit community, as I know a little more about what it takes to be a good structure limit player. Are these players (Seidel, Chan, Cloutier) abilities things that they're born with, or are they long developed? How well can they read people? Is it a situation where 9 friends of mine and one pro could sit down, and the pro would win 99 times out of 100?

I know the question is rather open ended, but its something that comes up a lot. What does it take to be on the highest level consistently?

(This post isn't really intended as a question about what my chances are to be a wsop NL champion, b/c I know I'd never have the time, energy, or ability to get to that level, but its an interesting topic to me nonetheless)

Thanks... all responses appreciated.

[Trefo]

The beauty of the game is on any given day anyone can be a world champion in a tournament...regardless of how good you are you still need the cards at some point during a tourney.
Guys like Cloutier and Chan are great at knowing all the angles, all they're outs and getting a read on people and their betting habits.....Of course it's come with years of playing and an infinite number of hands and situations to rely on. I do believe those top players have a great feel for the cards other people have and are great strategists come tourney time.

[Ed Miller]

In no situation in poker is it possible to win 99 out of 100. Think about it this way... the pro has to be willing to call allin at some point (or else the pro could be beaten by simply raising him allin every time he enters a pot). Almost any time you call allin before the river, you have a chance to lose... and in most cases, that chance is much greater than 1% (even if the opponent is drawing to 1 out, the chance of losing is over 2%). Compound that with the fact that, in order to win, he will probably have to call allin at least two or three times... and he is probably not even a favorite to win at all against nine naive opponents. I would guess that a world champion NL tournament player would have at most maybe a 20% chance of beating a field of nine opponents... at least if the opponents were willing to play a strategy that forced the champion to make calling decisions for all his chips.

[Ed Miller]

My 20% number doesn't make any sense without specifying a structure. I was assuming a typical one table satellite structure that is designed to finish in an hour or two. The structure is crucially important to determining the edge that a good player has... for instance... a structure that requires all players to ante their entire stack would make a tournament that lasts one hand (maybe two if there is a chop on the first hand) and give zero edge to a good player. On the other hand, if the blinds and antes are very small compared to average stack size, the pro has a large edge. This should be clear from my "force the pro to call allin" thought experiment, as if the stacks are small compared to the blinds, then the pro could be forced to call allin after passing only three or four times as he will be blinded/anted away quickly.

[bernie]

sounds like your planning on playing tourneys...

it's kinda common knowledge that many great tourney players suck at ring games. it's also been proven, to a certain point that in a n/l tourney that not so great players can win.....sklansky pointed this flaw out in his tourney book, which i only skimmed. i really liked 'the system' part. if you want to really know how great they are, i think a pot limit tourney is the toughest. i think pot limit games are the toughest....i think they favor the better player more than the n/l game.

that said....if your a thinking player, and you have a 'pro' on your table, you can still win. sure, in the long run he may get all your chips, but you may not be on the table for the length of time it would take for him to do it. 'pros' have their losing sessions too.

also if you notice, there are usually many new faces on the final table now. you dont see too many repeat players on the final table. there is alot of luck in the n/l tourneys. their is a different set of skills to use in these structures.

other side: you dont see too many ring gamers that are great at tourneys either. it's a rarity to see someone really good at both. the ringgamer may last awhile though, because he knows how to play tight enough to go far into the tourney, but he usually wont be in the top 3 places where the real money is. there was an article someone wrote in cardplayer i think that went into this question. if someone can remember who wrote it, and which issue it was, i hope they provide the information...

but when you're asking 'how good are they'. split the question into which discipline (structure) youre asking about.

this may sound a little bias, im a ringgamer. and i like when the local tourney 'great' players sit in my game...personally i think tourney players are greatly overrated. the ones who are really great, you never really hear about. ringgame-wise that is.

like one big pro in vegas once said when asked what would be his favorite table...."depends on how many bracelets are around it. the more the better."

not sure if this helps....just my thoughts

b

[sleepyjoe]

the way I described why I like to play poker and the reason that I win more than I lose: (this may seem a little crazy but just follow it through to the end)

think of it as cutting cards with someone for money. high card wins - Ace is the highest. The way I describe what I perceive as my advantage in poker is that I cut around a 10 in this game. sometimes it might be a jack and sometimes it might be a 9 (depending on how much my advantage is) but I always feel like I"m right in that range.

Now all this means is that I should win more often than I lose. There are 8 cards that my opponent could draw (2 through 9) in which I would win and there are 4 cards that my opponent could draw (J Q K A) in which I would lose. I have no control over what card my opponent is going to cut- nor do I have control over what cards my opponent plays in poker or when he folds, calls, or raises). All I can do is put myself in a good position to win and then hope for the best.

This is why, after some Vegas or AC trips, friends will ask me how I did and I'll tell them I lost. It's just a fact that cards are random and the "best" player doesn't always win.

In this scenario I would think of the real pro as someone who draws a Q or K every time, which would usually be enough to do real well. However, once in a while, someone will come along and draw that Ace to beat them, and that's what makes the game work.

And I'm not even baked typing this.

[D.J.]

First in response to sleepyjoe, that was a great way to explain a good player's edge in poker, it really made a lot of sense to me and I might even use it if a friend asks me the same question, great response.

Now as to how good are they, I truly believe that these top No limit tourny pros possess a skill that most no other players have. They seem to have a great sense of what other players have and how they will react when certain situations arise. These guys can go all in with 8-high and be confident that they will take the pot down b/c of what their opponents don't have. On the other hand, they can throw away their AK or QQ etc. pre-flop when they know it's no good. It's like their almost psychic. It sometimes seems like No Limit tourneys are all about who's got guts and who doesn't. With that said, I know that I am not on their level or close to it, and I will simply continue what I do best and that is limit hold-em. Hopefully I'll get to the level to feel confident playing in big NL tourneys one day.

-D.J.

[AmericanAirlines]

Well... can't say how good they are. But I was seated at a 5-10 stud game at the Mirage in '99 and Oklahoma Johnny Hale busted out his table stake of about $200 while I was playing.

Heck, I thought I was going to learn something about how to play.

He kept a copy of his book handy oddly enough.

Anyways, proof positive that a famous player can lose at a table full of regulars on just any old day at the table.

Sincerely,
AA

[Glenn]

"it's kinda common knowledge that many great tourney players suck at ring games."

I think this statement would be much more accurate if "great tourney players" was changed to "famous tourney players". This trend also mainly applies to no-limit tourney stars.

Also, I believe that:

"you dont see too many ring gamers that are great at tourneys either"

is fairly inaccurate.

Many of the best ring players have had success in tournies but simply don't play enough of to be recognized as tourney stars. The thing is, it is just not worth it to these people to play every $500 and $1000 buyin events since they can beat the $1K-2k type ring games. Cloutier, Hellmuth, and Men the Master are examples of the typical tourney specialist who are rumored to be fish in ring games. However, people like Ted Forrest, Jen Harman, Howard Lederer, Johnny World, Jon Chan etc... have all had tournament success. In a limit tournament of any type I would take all of these people over the "tourney specialists". Even in no-limt tournies these people have done well, they just don't play the sheer number of lower buyin events against weak fields that the more famous players do. There are other great ring gamers too with less famous names than those I mentioned who could probably be great tourney players as well but, again, they are too busy beating the $1500-$3000 games to even bother.

[bernie]

""you dont see too many ring gamers that are great at tourneys either"

is fairly inaccurate."

when i stated that, im talking about the main money places. top 3 or 4. you dont see too many really good ring gamers up this high in the tourney. not saying they never are, but theyre usually conditioned to a ring game style. a style which conflicts quite a bit with a tourney style.

a ring gamer, i think, can become a great tourney player easier than the other way around. i never said they couldnt 'become' a great tourney player. im talking about how they play now...someone, in cardplayer i think, did a good article on this. it may have been poker digest before they bit it. it was earlier this year. sorry, i cant remember...

the trend is quite a bit in the no limit tourneys, but even limit games play much different than ringgames. there really isnt a long run in a tourney the way there is in a ring game.

also note, you mentioned a few greats who can crossover. fine, but remember for everyone of those, there is about 100 great ring gamers that cant make the transition. sure, they could grind and make a final table once in awhile, but they wouldnt be making much. you have to do more than just be 'in the money' to profit from tourneys. if pros found the tourneys that profitable, and they were able to cross over more, they would play them more...and they dont. even mid limit pros. the payoffs could be a week's worth of grinding in a day or 2. the luck factor in a tourney is much greater than a ringgame i think. because youre limited by youre chips.

keep track of the players in CP who win the tournies, at whatever level....and see how often theyre in the big money part. then decide whether those players are good ringgamers also. you may be suprised to find that the majority arent.

btw...i happen to suck at tourneys....yes, ive been on the final tables, even won a tourney or 2. but when i enter a tourney, generally i know im not anywhere near the favorite id be in a ringgame with many of the same players id be facing.
sort of a trade-off i guess...

just some thoughts...

b

[balt999]

Those of us who play with Oklahoma Johnny knows he'll always shrill his book...brings it ever where he goes....Kinda like Susie Isaacs...she's always bring a copy of her book to tournaments..