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.

[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. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[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?

[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.