The Winning Player - Let's Define Him

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Part of being a winning player over the long-run is being able to adapt to changing circumstances, whatever those changes might be. If you're looking for some meta-definition of "winning player", maybe you're just not articulating what you mean.

If you accept the fact that the bottom line defines winning, then maybe the right question is "What is the process that enables a player to be a long term winner?"

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]

maybe you're just not articulating what you mean.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right here. I think the process of winning is pretty clear: play more correctly than incorrectly.

My question is, I believe, when we say "a winning player, blah, blah, blah" who is that player, exactly? The phrase gets slung around a lot without qualification.

The only reason I'm really caring too much about this at the moment is that I think it's very easy for someone who has had a good run of short term luck to believe she is a winning player, when in fact she is not for whatever reason.

Hmmmm.

Well, I think I'll stop using the phrase since I can't see that it really means anything objective. It doesn't point to quality of play, just ability to shepherd bankroll.

Thanks for everyone's thoughts on this.

T

[AceofSpades]

If the sum of the $ev decisions you make is positive and higher than the $ev sum of the (collective) opponents you play against, then you are a winning player. It's possible that there are winning players that have lost money over time because of very bad luck, but usually that's because they are a very marginal winning player.

- Joseph

I think of a winning player the same way I think of a .300 hitter in baseball.

He has his ups and downs, but at the end of the year the numbers are there.

In addition, the difference between a winning player and a loser is very small. The .300 hitter gets approx 1 more hit every six games than the below average .250 hitter.

[AlanBostick]

A winning player at a particular game and betting level is someone who has (1) played sufficiently long enough at that game and betting level that her results are statistically significant; and (2) has won a statistically significant amount more than she has lost at that game and betting level.

What is "statistically significant"? Having a win that is 1 sigma above breakeven is indicative but not conclusive that the player is a winner. 2 sigmas above breakeven shows that the odds that the player isn't a winner are 40:1 against. There is essentially no doubt that a player whose results are 3 sigmas above breakeven is a winner.

Note: after about seven years of overall winning recreational play, I'm only at about the 2-sigma level.

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bollocks. The player who doesn't go on tilt is a rare bird indeed, much rarer than the players who consistently take money out of the game year after year despite occasional costly tilting sprees.


And, by the way, bollocks. The only way a single mistake is going to wipe out your bankroll, even playing NLHE, is if you're fool enough to put your case money on the table. Mike McDermott in Rounders was an damned fool, and got what he deserved.

[BigBiceps]

The winning player makes less mistakes than his opponents.

Other winning players are just on the lucky side of bell curve for their sample size.

[Abbaddabba]

If you define a winning player as one who has a long run winrate exceeding 0BB/100 (assuming there exists a true long run average), you can evaluate it in terms of certainty only.

There is no sample size from which you can say with 100% confidence that your sample winrate is within +/- X of your true winrate, for any constant value of X.

So in other words, you can never be entirely sure that you're a winning player in the sense that it's defined above.


If you want to know if someone has BEEN a winning player, the answer lies in the ledger that is the sum of all of their hand histories.

I think a winning player WINS money! End of story THat is wins minus loses >> 0 in the long run. There is sometimes a difference between winning poker players and great poker players. Mike Matusow is a great poker player when he is on his game, when he is not he is a huge fish! From what I have read and witnessed he is a losing poker player. In the long run means tens of thousands of hands or thousands of sng's, etc. See Post on statistical significance... The points about tilt and what makes a winning player win are irrelevant to me. This refers to what makes a player a winner....consistency, making +EV decisions, playing in games with lesser players....etc. I am rambling here but winning in poker means winning money!!!!!!! THe proof is in the bottom line!