09-03-2001, 03:55 AM
Well, that's the thing. I don't know how to assess poker skill, really. But to base it on an arbitrary number that has more to do with the skill of your opponents, I'm not sure that's the best measure of skill...just like I don't think the best boxer in the world is the World Heavyweight Champion...he's just the best in that weight class - and is it because he's toughest, or just cause he can pound someone into submission before being beat up? Lots of factors make skillful play.
For example...Mason Malmuth and David Sklansky play 30/60 and earn 1-2 BB per hour - correct? (well, they probably earn more...but that's a good example) - Let's say that's 30-60 bucks an hour...pretty good. - But what happens when some Hollywood chump comes in and sits at the game...or when the last five WSOP finalists come to the table....is the $ average a real measure of skill?
I played 3-6 hold em today for 5 hours and made $150 dollars or approx. 10 BB's per hour. The previous night was even better...Using these guidelines, that would make me the pro player...better then DS or MM...and that just ain't the case. Most of us playing a low-limit game where we pick our table and find the chumps could easily have better financial results then either of these guys playing pros at their own skill level. It becomes an arbritary measure of skill dependant a large part on how dumb the people you are playing with happen to be...like the guy I played today.
A longer stretch and analysis of my time would actually show a loss for the time I've played poker...but it's only been three months...I'm still getting my game together. Perhaps my newness shows my ignorance...but as a person who used to play games with solid objectives and conditions...I find the whole 1-2 BB/hour thing to be way too subjective. Perhaps over thousands of hours...that would be a good indication...but then you're still assuming average opponents, some of whom are worse then you. That just won't always happen.
For example...Mason Malmuth and David Sklansky play 30/60 and earn 1-2 BB per hour - correct? (well, they probably earn more...but that's a good example) - Let's say that's 30-60 bucks an hour...pretty good. - But what happens when some Hollywood chump comes in and sits at the game...or when the last five WSOP finalists come to the table....is the $ average a real measure of skill?
I played 3-6 hold em today for 5 hours and made $150 dollars or approx. 10 BB's per hour. The previous night was even better...Using these guidelines, that would make me the pro player...better then DS or MM...and that just ain't the case. Most of us playing a low-limit game where we pick our table and find the chumps could easily have better financial results then either of these guys playing pros at their own skill level. It becomes an arbritary measure of skill dependant a large part on how dumb the people you are playing with happen to be...like the guy I played today.
A longer stretch and analysis of my time would actually show a loss for the time I've played poker...but it's only been three months...I'm still getting my game together. Perhaps my newness shows my ignorance...but as a person who used to play games with solid objectives and conditions...I find the whole 1-2 BB/hour thing to be way too subjective. Perhaps over thousands of hours...that would be a good indication...but then you're still assuming average opponents, some of whom are worse then you. That just won't always happen.