How many of the BIG GAME players are the real deal?

[Gishaclaus]

[ QUOTE ]
well maybe that is why i can push those small edges because i'm playing at limits where i dont have to worry about bankroll. i said i was ultra conservative in limits i play. not how i play my hands. If you were a good player you would see the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I smell a freezeout challenge . . .

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet if they were playing limit holdem. That me and some of my pro buddies(that are worse players than the likes of lenny martin probably) would not be the worst players in the game. And probably be favorites in the game. Assumming we had the bankroll or they played at our limits where all things would be more equal. I mean its limit holdem. If you know how to play it. How can they have a big edge on me? These guys are overrated imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

You in the big game would be like Apollo Creed against Ivan Drago.

[ZeeJustin]

You are overestimating how simple it is to play limit holdem, and underestimating how being a "word class poker player" translates into being at least great at all forms of poker, even ones the expert has little experience at.

I've talked with people that are so good at poker that the complex level they think on intimidates a player as good as me. Even these guys that I've talked to have all felt the same feeling talking to players a couple tiers above themselves.

Poker is not as simple as you think, and nothing close to perfect play will ever be acheived by anyone.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But i'm ultra conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe anyone who is too conservative by nature can push the small edges required to really be a top level poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I humbly disagree, solely based on the fact that virtually all edges are small. Not to mention by stereotype a more conservative player is one who thinks more about his game and is able to see places where he could of pushed small edges.


If what you are trying to say is conservative players aren't willing to risk their entire bankroll on small edges. Then you're right. I think anyone who is willing to do so without easy means to replacing their roll is a fool. Want proof? How many great gamblers are there who are broke half the time? I rest my case.

[Hold'me]

Smoothcall, shut the f*ck up. You know nothing about nothing. I have yet to hear of any of your poker achievements (duh! you have none.) You spend all this time polluting these forums, have you ever even actually played poker in a B&M?

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet if they were playing limit holdem. That me and some of my pro buddies(that are worse players than the likes of lenny martin probably) would not be the worst players in the game. And probably be favorites in the game. Assumming we had the bankroll or they played at our limits where all things would be more equal. I mean its limit holdem. If you know how to play it. How can they have a big edge on me? These guys are overrated imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a quote from Good Will Hunting that is apropos here. The MIT professor notes that there are only a dozen people in the world who recognize the difference between he and Matt Damon. My only data on you is from your idiotic posts. But on that basis, my belief is that you're not good enough even to recognize the difference between yourself and seriously good players. Why is it that Barry and Phil I have the bankroll, and you do not?

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
And what makes them world class?

[/ QUOTE ]

A few years ago, when I was new to Vegas and had just met the hosts of this Forum, gosh has it been that long, I had this very discussion with Mason Malmuth. I believe that in the archives somewhere there is a long discussion of just what it means to be a "World Class" poker player.

Anyway I kept insisting that the title "world class" was meaningless. I insisted that the skill level needed to win at high stakes was the same as that needed to win at mid limit. I remember this conversation more and more as I go along. There were three of us sitting around a table I believe at the Nugget or maybe the Mirage Cafe. Me, Mason and MS a good buddy of Mason's. Both of them kept emphasising to me that to successfully play high stakes poker required keen poker sense and high, fine tuned, skill. Well, they didn't quite say that but that's about what they meant. The bottom line was that because a player is successful or even great at one limit does not translate too him being even competent at another.

It's taken a while for me to understand, and I admit not fully, just what these two guys were saying but I finally got it and yes, Mason, I agree.

Certainly, Smoothcall, makes a good point when he states that bankroll is a prime consideration. But bankroll alone will not make a player a winner. There is a necessary balance needed between bankroll, limit played and skill. But the fact is that the higher one plays the better the competition. If one is to survive with the best one needs to hone their poker skills to a point equal to or better than the worst of the competition. Playing high stakes Poker, being a "world Class player" in my opinion means that ones skill has progressed to where they truly have a "feel" for the game.

Vince

[ohgeetee]

It's obvious... They have been running lucky.

[Hold'me]

Vince you need to check yourself into a clinic. I doubt you know Mason, I doubt you play poker at all, and I doubt that you have all your marbles intact.

[nocab]

jennifer harmon was playing low- mid limits and worked her way up and continued to build her bankroll, playing as high as she could afford untill she made it into the 4k/8k game, i have friends that saw phil ivey playing 75-150 in atlantic city a few years back, i'm sure most of the players in this game built their bankrolls at lower limits over a long time until they could afford it, and the fact that they continued to win over all these years at all limits proves they are some of the best players in the world