Are winning players really a bunch of wussy's or just smart?

For the most part my attitude when playing poker at the level my BR will allow is to play anyone and everyone "No Fear". I might table select but I want to be able to play and beat anyone at that level and therefore my competition is hit and miss. We all know experience is one of the best teachers in the game. Usually you have to lose your ass to learn and get better and I'm very OK with that. BUT, on the other hand "if" your in it for the money then you are looking for any edge you can. Therefore you still have to be a good enough player to beat the rake and the avg. fish. On the other hand this isn't going teach you any hard lessons. I'm not saying you can't learn from worse players than yourself because you can. It just seems like once your able to "beat the game" then one is always looking for the easy way out so to speak and play the softest games possible for money in your hip pocket. Are most winning players being a bunch of wussy's or just being smart?

[Bosox]

Play sports for fun or chess for challenge. Play poker for money.
Smart.

[TexArcher]

I'm not in it for bragging rights over good players, I'm in it for money. If I could find a table of retarded poker playing monkeys that's where I'd sit...

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not in it for bragging rights over good players, I'm in it for money. If I could find a table of retarded poker playing monkeys that's where I'd sit...

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not in it for bragging rights over good players, I'm in it for money. If I could find a table of retarded poker playing monkeys that's where I'd sit...

[/ QUOTE ] LINK (www.partypoker.com)

[einbert]

What is wussy about playing online poker? At the level I play at (10/20 shorthanded LHE), it's not easy, it is a challenge. Sure some players are decent and some are worse than decent, but some of them are extremely good. You get put to the test a lot and you have to put other players to the test in order to be successful. I find it both mentally challenging and and a good source of money.

If I have to choose between two tables, I will choose the one where I think I will make the most money per hour. That doesn't mean it's going to be easy. Even against very bad players, there are marginal decisions all the time. Playing poker extremely well is simply not easy, because there are very frequently situations where the right decision is right only by a very small margin. Playing winning poker at a particular level may be easy, but really trying to make the best decisions possible as often as possible is a very challenging task, even if you are playing $.50/$1.00. Let that be your challenge.

[bicyclekick]

we're freaking wussies.

[Maksymilian]

I like to crush the weak money games and then put a little money into a tournament with some big names for the challenge. That gives you the chance to play some tough guys with limited damage to the bankroll.

[Cumulonimbus]

[ QUOTE ]
we're freaking wussies.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Adam Carolla]

[ QUOTE ]
"No Fear"

[/ QUOTE ]

The real wussies are the ones who have to remind everyone that they have no fear. Especially the douchbags who have those NO FEAR t-shirts and bumper stickers, which you probably have.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"No Fear"

[/ QUOTE ]

The real wussies are the ones who have to remind everyone that they have no fear. Especially the douchbags who have those NO FEAR t-shirts and bumper stickers, which you probably have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, let me know when your in town next so I can buy you a beer.

Cheers /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[diebitter]

Smart.

I love your 'no fear' stuff.

Good reply, I would have to say it's a smart move. Sooner or later when you move up in levels your going to be tested and should get better if you stick with it. For the most part it is about making money so searching for weaker competition in order to make money is good. A pro isn't a pro because he/she only plays vs. other pro's since we all know you won't make anything doing that. Sometimes it just seems like people are just not willing to buck heads with other good players for any amount of time, which is why I made the wussy statement.

[cnfuzzd]

You play for reasons of ego. Almost every winning player plays the game to win money. Therefore, you are probably not a winning player.

peace

john nickle

[ohnonotthat]

how much you take out of the [weak] game as compared to how the "other guy" does in the same game.

Put another way, I may cherish the idea of taking on Mr. "X", the hypothetical greatest 1-1 player in the world but even if I reach the point where I can hold my own vs. him it's not going to put any money in my pocket.

How about if I play all the same players he plays and compare my results against Tom, Dick and Harry against his results.

I still get to measure my skill against his but using the 2nd method I also stuff my pockets with cash.

Wouldn't that accomplish both goals ?

[driller]

YES /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[SoftcoreRevolt]

If winning players are whimps, so are armies, who usually attempt to attack where their enemy is weak, to outflank them, etc. Rarely does an army look to attack nearly equally strong opponents when they can look for a weaker target.

[xwillience]

its all about perception, im in it for the challenge of getting the most money.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
we're freaking wussies.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ResidentParanoid]

I like the analogy. Tojo and Hitler were not wussies. They had no fear (i.e. were not that smart). As poker players, they would likey lose their whole bankroll by moving up to the 30/60 game too quickly. Eisenhower was no wussie. He had some healthy fear (i.e. he was smart). As a poker player, he would probably stay at the 3/6 game until he was ready to move up.