Why winning players really win.

PokerDork · #1 03-05-2005, 05:58 PM

I recently had a thought, and though I'm quite sure I am not the first person to have made this hypothesis, I was wondering what the poker community at large had to say about this. Here it is- Winning players at the micro-medium limits (say 30/60 in most areas- I've played as high as 20/40) win primarily by being oppurtunistic. I believe this to be true because In a relatively short period of time I believe any player willing to learn how to play correctly can become a winner in today's poker environment. And that the real reason winners win is because they are really the only ones who care about winning. Most poker players play for fun, or to gamble, and know that with the proper effort they could greatly increase their EV (even if they don't yet know what EV is), but they choose not to because that is simply not why they play poker. I can think of specific examples of individuals I know who even know how to play properly but prefer the action over the potential profit. Winning players are the players who prefer the profit over the action, and are simply there to take advantage of those who don't care about their money or don't possess the knowledge to hold on to it at the table. Basically, I contend that talent and skill is not what really makes a low-mid stakes winner, but rather the ability to seize an oppurtunity. I feel this way primarily because I have had success in the games I have played to this point in my poker career, and I really don't feel like I am anything special with respect to my poker talent. I am simply a guy who took the time and had the patience to take advantage of oppurtunities and profit from them. Agreements and disagreements welcomed.

Cooker · #2 03-06-2005, 01:53 AM

I agree. I do fairly well at the lower limits and I only consider myself an okay player (I think I am fairly studious, but very inexperienced). One of the main reasons I win is that the opposition is just plain terrible. I really think the key to winning at the low levels is to play hands that you expect to be drawing hands only in late position so that you can play for free cards and such, and value bet the heck out of the calling stations with your good hands. They will call with hands you beat frequently. I once bet a set of deuces into a 4 flush board (misclick), got called and overcalled and won the hand. How in the world could that happen against reasonable opponents? Thank god for the low limits.

Most of the time when I find myself running bad it is just because I am making too many cute bluffs when scare cards hit. Almost no player at the lower limits lays down a pair EVER, and will frequently show down Ace-big unimproved.

craftyandsly · #3 03-06-2005, 02:19 AM

Well, as for me ... I am afraid of no player. Absolutely, NO ONE. Not a single player intimidates me. It's just that my current game is quite pathetic in the nth degree ... <g>

Why? Because this is only my second month ... and I am *tired* of donating anything more than my pathetic play allows. I am still studying (thank you PokerStars staff), and invest a minimum of 60 hours weekly to my study of this fascinating, mind game. Sure, I play the play money games and sometimes win. But, currently, I am behind by some several hundred dollars in real money to those who know I am a rookie ...

I'm getting much better ... I am now able to keep my emotions in check whenever I suffer a bad beat or I hit an ace-high straight. I no longer shout at my monitor, hit my desk with my fist, or stamp my feet in frustration.

The better poker players win because they can spot a rookie, like me, a mile away ... either that ... or they originally heard my shouting all the way from my humble abode in the Green Mountains of Vermont. <g>

Craftyandsly (Name's_Tom)

TStoneMBD · #4 03-06-2005, 03:59 AM

you argue that anyone can win at poker because all it takes dedication and an interest to win. well, it could be argued that some people do not have the capacity to dedicate themselves to the game and therefore it is naturally impossible for them to become winning players because they do not have the psychological makeup for it. another arguement against your statement is that not everyone has the natural intellect needed in order to excel at this game. show me a mentally handicapped player who plays poker for a living and i'll show you hell freezing over. i don't mean to insult anyone out there who is mentally handicapped or knows someone with this disability, but it's simply the matter of fact. people in the lower ranges of intelligence simply will not excel past a person with higher intelligence. yes, its very likely that a mentally handicapped person dedicated to the game will outclass a novice, but there are too many people with high intellects dedicated to the game for a mentally handicapped person to excel to their level within a lifetimes worth of discipline.

PokerDork · #5 03-06-2005, 04:25 AM

Yeah, I suppose you have a point. And, I'm not trying to sound cocky, but I suppose maybe I've taken for granted the fact that I've always been above average in terms of math and problem solving skills, so maybe my finding poker easy is a by-product of the fact that I am fortunate enough to innately possess a number of key traits for poker success.

WriterBoy · #6 03-06-2005, 12:22 PM

All of my life, i've been math-phobic. More than that, even, I've been anti-math. This website, and the 2+2 books have actually _taught_ me not to be afraid of it. Counting outs alone has made me more confident.

My expertise has always been literature, which takes a different kind of intelligence in my opinion. It's through my diligent reading of the subject that has helped my game.

But it seems a bit ego-centric to just assume that because you're a good, (or even just barely above average) poker player, that this could only happen because you are smarter than the "average" people around you. Most likely, this is untrue, it's just that you have a "specific" knowledge in poker.

elmitchbo · #7 03-06-2005, 01:24 PM

i've always been rather anti-math myself. i never enjoyed it until i applied it to poker. i often joke that i barely know my multiplication tables..... but everything is relative. i did pass calculus and statisitics in college, which probably puts me in the top 20% compared to the general populus. the problem is i compare myself to math professor friends that went to MIT, not joe schmo.

it is much more difficult than you think to be a winning poker player. you are right that many people could play better if they wanted, but simply choose not to apply themselves. i've made posts about a friend who simply likes to gamble. the results are not all that important for him. he just enjoys the thrill of gambling, win or lose. there are also many people that couldn't win regardless of the effort they put in. the people that you play with that are so terrible.... alot of them are trying their best to win. the point is that you aren't an average player playing against really bad players, they are the average player and you are much better.

i'd like to see a poll done here on education and IQ. most of the people here have both.... lots of the losers have neither. i'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to that, but i believe it would be a safe generalization. poker requires the application of many types of intelligence.... logical-math, spatial, interpersonal and intrapersonal.... most people will just fall too far short in at least one of those areas to really excel. i don't find that to be ego-centric at all.

Sponger15SB · #8 03-06-2005, 02:54 PM

I was talking to a guy named Steve "Country" Rielly who finished 8th at the 2002 WSOP ME the other night.

He said that while he was working as an electrician he was playing poker on the side and wanted to get really good at it, so every day on his lunch break he would read a poker book, then go home and open a 6 pack and read some more.

He just wanted to be good so bad that he was willing to spend all his free time studying, playing, or thinking about the game.

He also said something that blew my mind, in that when he bought super system, he sat down and read the entire thing all the way through without stopping!

Anyways, I guess it shows how far determination will take you in the poker world.

That guy · #9 03-06-2005, 03:53 PM

Why do people play blackjack and craps? I know I play these games sometimes because they are fun. Along those line, I seriously think that a lot of the population thinks poker is about catching cards and getting lucky (which it pretty much is in the short-run)... They can play poker and get lucky just like they can at Blackjack or Craps...

I remember back when I played 3-6 live and everyone played everything in hopes of flopping a pair and then if they did, they would hang in there 'drawing to 2-pair.' They never thought about if this bet was 'a profitable bet' or not.

But I am struck by something Chris Ferguson said during the 2003 WSOP... He was talking about his mathematical background and he is clearly gifted intellectually... but he commented that he was amazed at how well so many people can play without really understanding the mathematical fundamentals and intricacies of the game... For some, they learn how to play correctly without knowing why or how they are doing it...

You go to a cardroom and these aren't your A students from high school. Most can't explain what they are doing and they lose... but some can't explain what they are doing and they are winning players... it is pretty fascinating.

maldini · #10 03-06-2005, 08:14 PM

i play in a couple of low stakes home games with friends here in Austin. the game is always NLHE. the majority of these guys lose nearly everytime we play. they are average salary type guys. smart but not really go-getters. heck, one is even unemployed and loses probably $40/week. they never bothered to read even one poker book. i've even offered to lend mine. not once has any of them taken me up on it. I offered a book to one friend, who is recently super hooked to NLHE (enough to go buy a table), after he strongly expressed to me in private how badly he wanted to be good. his response to my offer: "i dont want to get better by reading about it. i want to get good by playing." I honestly didnt know how to respond.

OTOH, i play with other friends when i go to houston. they are the same age and socio-demographics. only, these guys are lawyers, bankers, stockmarket types, etc. as far as i can tell, they have all read many (if not all) the books and spent mucho time thinking and talking about the game. they are all, way better than my Austin friends.

Coincidence?