Greenstein's Ratings--The Totals

[Robrizob]

If we regard looseness and aggressiveness as measures of style and not skill, as Greenstein himself does in his commentary on the meanings of the ratings, then the totals of the measurements of skill are as follows:

P. Ivey 64
B. Greenstein 62
C. Reese 61
D. Negreanu 59
D. Brunson 58
H. Lederer 58
E. Seidel 57
J. Chan 56
C. Giang 56
D. Harrington 56
T. Forrest 55
J. Hennigan 55
J. Juanda 55
D. Oppenheim 54
G. Hansen 53
J. Harman 53
D. Grey 52
M. Tran 50
L. Berman 49
B. Baldwin 48
A. Duke 46**
T.J. Cloutier 46
P. Hellmuth 45

**Annie wasn't rated under short-handed, so I gave her an average score of 5.

[NLSoldier]

This is stupid. By simply adding up the ratings you are saying that someone playing more loose than someone else makes them better.

[Robrizob]

If you had read what I said a little closer, you might've noticed the part about leaving out looseness and aggressiveness in the totals. Sharp.

[dankhank]

i've only ever watched these players play on TV and read other people's opinions on them, but if i were to rank these players myself (sans numbers) i don't think my list would look very different at all. kind of strange how an expert's data ends of jiving with conventional wisdom so well.

the list seems to be biased towards side games, with juanda and hellmuth being, to me, the most improperly rated. but in the whole scheme of poker maybe skill (in an earning potential sense) should be biased towards side games. greenstein's ratings shouldn't be considered definitive but geez, they sure do solidify some of my opinions on a subject most of us don't know a damn thing about, but sure wish we did.

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
If you had read what I said a little closer, you might've noticed the part about leaving out looseness and aggressiveness in the totals. Sharp.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, my bad. My first thought was that you maybe left em out and then i saw the disclaimer at the bottom but all it talked about was Annie Duke not having a SH rating so I decided that you must not have done anything about looseness. Guess I didn't even see the stuff at the top. Sorry.

[zaxx19]

Substitute "looseness" with the word unpredictable hand selection and perhaps you will understand why this can be a positive at the HIGHEST reaches of Poker play where playing straight up TAG poker just will not make you a winner.

[La Brujita]

Interesting to see the list presented this way. I love seeing Hellmuth at the bottom.

[REL18]

Little secret screw the ratings read his comments ledere seems like a perfect player and in Johnda seems like a god and Ted forrester Cant be beat in his game of choice by anyone, and ivery is the next king

[Avatar of Wine]

[ QUOTE ]
Substitute "looseness" with the word unpredictable hand selection and perhaps you will understand why this can be a positive at the HIGHEST reaches of Poker play where playing straight up TAG poker just will not make you a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]


. . . and this point is not misunderstood by anyone, but the 'looseness' rating seems to waver from good to bad in greenstein's comments. So it's not used for 'empirical' data, but rather considered as 'stylistic.'

r->c->p?

[A_C_Slater]

Nice how Greenstein ended up 2nd in the rankings. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]


Ivey must be really, really, damn good. Maybe it's due to the fact that he's the youngest and is able to maintain a greater duration of optimal focused awareness.