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

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
What I meant was that the first 6 or responses had nothing to do with the post,

[/ QUOTE ]

O.K Then. I apologize for being short. By the way, i finished second to Fossilman in an NEPC Stud tournay a few years ago. Of course I let him win so he would like me.

Vince

[Smoothcall]

When i posed the question i made sure to say if they played a limit that we all could afford to make it fair. Then it would come down to abiltiy and not how much money they have, or can get.

As far as them using money as tools. I and many others do the same. To assume i don't think this way after i tell you i'm a solid poker player is insulting. Everybody that is a good poker player knows this. This is not a good argument to explain why they are better than me. Do you see why?

That is the point of my post that people like you think they would eat you for breakfast. I mean that may be true if you are a novice. I don't know you're abilty. But if you are a very solid winning poker player i think this is false and why i think they are overrated.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is an interesting question, regardless of who posted it. In fact, I was just thinking about it today.

You have to assume that, for the most part, none of the regulars in this game have a huge edge. They have to t\rely on the occasional "fish" (better yet, "whale") that sits in to make his name playing the best. Rounders pointed this out in the part about Atlantic City.

So for the most part, I think they just move money around and split the $200,000 or so a month dropped by the fish.

THat being said, I think they are some of the best players in the world, especially when you factor in the ability to play all games well. I dealt for 6 years and in that time I regularily dealt $150-$300 or $300-$600 mixed games. Not the same players, but the same caliber. Just not the same "unlimited" bankrolls. Every player had his strong game, and his weak game. They make their $ in the strong one and dribble some back in the others. And vice-versa.
But what really sets THESE guys apart is the abilty to play THIS level and think of the $ as a tool, not as cash. If they thought of $250,000 like you and I do their games would change just enough to lose that edge. The chips are simply tools to them and they move them with abandon. You have to have no fear whatsoever to play $4K-$8K.

That's what sets them apart. They'd eat us for breakfast, not because they no more or play better. But because of the bankroll necessary to play "comfortably" at this level.

Keep playing hard! Glen

[/ QUOTE ]

....point well made, Glenn.

The difficulty with this question, IMO, is attempting to define the phrase "World Class" and then establishing a reasonable metric by which it can be measured.

Let me toss this one out for consideration....

"The fewer the errors, the bettor the player"

What is the metric?

The acknowledged underlying math upon which the game is based.

Myrt.........

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Please elaborate? I am out of touch? Are you trying to tell me you think he got the money to play in the big game griding out 30-60? If so, i would have to say you are out of touch. If anyone is gonna say he didn't get the money to play in the big game through tournaments they are out of touch as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has the money to play in the biggest games because he is a highly skilled poker player and a smart business man. If he built up a decent roll playing stud and HE, then turned that into massive profits playing some excellent NL HE tournaments, which in turn has allowed him to play in basically any game in the world, I don't see what the problem is. In effect, he did get the money to play in the biggest games by grinding it out because he was smart enough to realize he could take that money and make some huge profits in NL tournaments. Your arguments are moronic.

[ohgeetee]

I think Larry Flint is considered an excellent Stud player. The difference between him and Barry on the surface is Barry's ability to play any game, whereas Flynt will only play Stud for the higher stakes.

[Moovyz]

"The fewer the errors, the bettor the player"

I like that. Let's expound.

I like to think of myself as a very strong player. At the levels I play, I am a consistant winner (2 BB/HR) for more than 10 years. I also play all games well, with the possible exception being PL Omaha, not my strongest game, due to lack of experience. My strongest game is NL, both live and Tournament. Now, in live I play mostly low to mid level, blinds up to $10-20 NL. $1,000 avg. Buy-in. If for some reason, I got a backer let's say, and I sat in a $4K-$8K limit, I would probably get eaten alive because it is not possible for me to play that level without my game changing ever-so slightly. If I lost a pot that totalled $50K it would affect me conciously or uncounciously, just because of the amount. It's real money. And represents a years or more of playing at the levels I'm used to. I would make more errors than I normally would.

Now, if I managed to get lucky and win 1 or 2 sessions and build a cushion, I would probably settle in and let my game rise to it's normal level. I would then believe that I would make few errors, and be able to play at that level.

Tournies are different. The chips have value, but usually not an immediate cash value. If you're up 10 times what you started with 1/2 way through an event, you can't get up and just cash out. So the chips become tools to get to the finish line. Great tournament played seldom think in amounts, except as it relates to blind size, stack sizes and pot sizes.

Unless you have a bankroll that allows for comfort at a specific level, I don't think many, if any, can play their regular game at a higher level. It's human nature. I don't think you can just erase that part from your mind. And therefore, you'll make more errors, not calling when you normally would, etc.

Keep playing hard! Glen

I've played against some 3/6 players that I'm sure could play much higher (maybe up to 100/200) if it weren't for lack of roll. It logically follows that there are probably some 10/20 players that could hold their own in the 4K/8K if they were properly rolled.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
I've played against some 3/6 players that I'm sure could play much higher (maybe up to 100/200) if it weren't for lack of roll. It logically follows that there are probably some 10/20 players that could hold their own in the 4K/8K if they were properly rolled.

[/ QUOTE ]

please tell me you aren't serious.

[Moovyz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've played against some 3/6 players that I'm sure could play much higher (maybe up to 100/200) if it weren't for lack of roll. It logically follows that there are probably some 10/20 players that could hold their own in the 4K/8K if they were properly rolled.

[/ QUOTE ]

please tell me you aren't serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my point. But properly rolled means the ability to play at that level and absorb some of the swings as well without jeapodizing the roll. Many lower limit players posses the same skills that higher players have. Many drivers posses the same driving ability as race car drivers, they just don't drive the same cars or on a track.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
That is the point of my post that people like you think they would eat you for breakfast. I mean that may be true if you are a novice. I don't know you're abilty. But if you are a very solid winning poker player i think this is false and why i think they are overrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you think this is false. Nothing you've written suggests you're perceptive enough to see otherwise. You're like the man on the street who thinks the MIT professor is as smart as Matt Damon.

I'm a winning stud player at the 100-200 level and have been for years. I've played enough against Phil I to know that he plays the game better than I do; in the long run, unless I improve materially, he will beat me. If we played $1-2 stud and he took it seriously, he would beat me there, too. He sees the game more deeply than I do; he reads me better than I read him; and he focuses better and sees more at the table than I do.