The Winning Player - Let's Define Him

[SheridanCat]

The question recently came up in the Beginner's Forum about what constitutes a winning poker player.

We're talking a long-term, non-results oriented winner. How are we able to tell if we are or are not a winning player? Primarily I'm interested in players who are primarily ring game specialists with maybe a few tournaments sprinkled in here and there.

Let's assume we keep complete session statistics, so we know our standard deviation. But, we play both B&M and online and while we keep Poker Tracker up-to-date, about 25% of our playing hours are live, so no PT for those.

Anyone have any thoughts on how to evaluate your play?

Before I get the obligatory suggestion to search the archives, I have done so. Using Google, I found many, many, many references to the phrase "winning player" but none that I found really describes what that means. Most take for granted that we know how to define a winning player.

So, thoughts?

Regards,

T

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

We're talking a long-term, non-results oriented winner.

I hate to be the fly in the ointment here, but long-term, the *only* measure of a winning player is results. In the final analysis, the only relevant stat is the + sign at the bottom of the ledger.

Someone can lose most of the time and get lucky at a major tournament and have a positive bankroll. When I first started playing poker, I had lost over $12,000 before I finally won $34,000 in a big online tournament. I knew not to let it get to my head, though, and pocketed most of my winnings.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

I hate to be the fly in the ointment here, but long-term, the *only* measure of a winning player is results. In the final analysis, the only relevant stat is the + sign at the bottom of the ledger.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is something in what you say. A player who knows how to play winning poker, but frequently tilts or has poor game selection might not be a winning player.

On the other hand, many players don't play very much. Someone who plays 1 table 2 hours per week, for a total of 6000 hands at the end of the year, might have won 1 BB/100, but might have a 95% confidence interval of 1+-4 BB/100. I would not put such a player in the same category as someone who is ahead of even by 4 or more standard deviations.

I am a mathematician and occasionally a good poker player. I have read countless articles and books, have several years of playing experience, and do my own research with sims and databases. However, while I think I have a good theoretical understanding of poker, the hardest thing to control is emotion. The winning player doesn't tilt, plain and simple. I can play for several weeks and amass a large bankroll, but (especially in NL) it only takes a single moment of irrational, poor judgment to lose it all.

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
We're talking a long-term, non-results oriented winner.

I hate to be the fly in the ointment here, but long-term, the *only* measure of a winning player is results. In the final analysis, the only relevant stat is the + sign at the bottom of the ledger.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to accept this, but how long is long then? And, if there's a significant change in environment, such as moving up or maybe moving to a more action oriented game, how does that affect this?

Regards,

T

[BasketballNYC]

The winning player wins. Done. That is all. If I am an absolute fish, play once, win and never play poker again, I am a "winning player". I am not a "good player". Thing is, in reality the fish is going to play again. And the longer he plays, the closer his results will match his skill level. By skills I include all elements that create a player that has an advantage. Mathematical, reads, table selection, emotional control etc.

Let us say I have no sense of the math in poker yet I am a telepath and know what everyones cards are. I have an advantage over the table. let us say I am a robot that never makes a mathematical mistake using hand distributions and pot/implied odds. I have an advantage over most tables. This makes me a "good player". But only that combined with time will make me a "winning player"

[SheridanCat]

Excellent point on tilting. I should have included in my criteria that the player in question does not tilt to any significant extent. He feels it coming and takes a walk before making any significant mistake.

Regards,

T

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
If I am an absolute fish, play once, win and never play poker again, I am a "winning player".

[/ QUOTE ]
You are a player who won, past tense. It does not mean you are winning now, or will win in the future.

[phish]

Not being facetious or sarcastic: a winning player is simply someone who plays significantly better than most of his opponents.

A winner at the micro-limits may have totally different characteristics from a world class winner. But they're both winners because the micro limit player knows his skill level and plays where he has an edge.

As you move up, winning characteristics will change. The key to remaining a winner is to adjust and grow appropriately and to recognize when you are not a winner and step down.