Good Morning! 10% winners-- ? % are experts??..Hmmm

[SittingBull]

There are players who sincerely believe that there are a few expert poker players in MORE than ONE game type/structure.. [img]/forums/images/icons/shocked.gif[/img]
Let's look at my "armchair reasoning" to refute this argument. [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]
I've heard that there are about 10% of all poker players who are consistent winners. It's reasonable to assume that of the 10%,about 3% are true experts. But I'm speaking about ONE type of game and ONE type of structure.
If we add a different structure but the same game--whether it be stud,Hold'em,Omaha,etc.,then it's even MORE reasonable to assume that this 3% reduces to about 1% of the experts .
Now add another type of game to the players repertoire.
Hmmm We are NOW looking at his chances of being an expert in this additional type of game as 0%.
IF ANY player considers himself an expert in more than ONE type and structure,there IS a VERY good chance that he is deceiving himself.
The great Roy West stated that "after playing 30 years,I am still LEARNING" how to play poker.
This makes sense.
One simply does NOT have enough time in his life to improve to expert status in more than one type and structure game.
However,if my argument (reasoning) is fallacious,I'm inviting critics to present strong evidence to the contrary.
In fact , any reasonable evidence will lead me to start thinking in the reverse direction. So if I AM wrong,please provide me with the evidence.
Happy pokering, [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]
SittingBull

[Warren Whitmore]

The correlation to play games well in general is quite high. If someone is good at chess they are far more likely to be good at checkers than someone who does not play chess. With poker the bulk of the base knowledge say 70% is in the theory of poker which covers the full gambet of poker. Another 20% is in the advanced books for the specific games. Another 10% for all the other books combined, we are into the law of diminishing returns here. Once you have the basics down for one game you are not starting from scratch to learn the next. Roy West is still learning, thats great. I would however venture to guess that Roys learning curve is pretty darn flat compared to someone who has never played before. Lets use Roy for this example: Is Roy going to increase his hourly rate more by studying an addition 25 hours of stud or Omaha hi low split? My guess would be that he may bring his stud win rate from $30/hr to $30.0001/hr if he chose stud and perhaps his omaha hi low game from negative $15/hr to positive $10/hr. I suspect by studying 100 hours each of the games which are spread he would have:
1) considerable greater game selection options which could not help but improve his hourly win rate.
2) By knowing the changes that must be made for ante structure considerations he could take advantage of a situation where a rock moved from 10:20 stud to 15:30.
3) By improving all games you become better at your specialty in the same way that running and weight lifting improve a football players performance. If Roy felt that he was great at football but never trained in any suplemental way I dont believe he would be as good as if he just practiced the basic game everyday he still would be improving just not maximizing his potential.

These are just my opinions my only data to support it is my own win rate which has been highest when I go into a poker room and seek out the game with the greatest expected win rate even though it is usually not my game or preferece.

[Fitz]

I believe there are those out there who are truly experts in all of the major poker discplines. I would equate it to those who are linquistic experts. There are some people out there who have an "ear" for languages; these people can, fairly easily, learn many languages and become fluent in them. For whatever reason, these people are hard wired so this type of learning is easier for them than for the rest of us. To add to that, once they have the framework of knowledge in place, it is much easier to add to it, learn another language, than it is to start from scratch. I think poker experts like Ray Zee, or S&M fall into this category. They all have the innate skills necessary to be a poker expert, and with years of practice and experience are able to broaden that area of expertise to several games.

I think the really interesting aspect of a question like this is how do you explain someone like Stu Unger who was a virtual savant? He was the worlds greatest Gin Rummy player as a teenager, and when he couldn't get a Gin game, he decided to play poker, and he becomes the worlds greatest no limit hold 'em player.

One of the reasons I like this forum; it often offers a little mental exercise.

Good luck,

[Huh]

I think you're thinking is flawed for a couple of reasons.

First of all, the players you are talking about are likely playing very high limit poker where the time charge is a very small percentage of a small bet. For this reason, I think more than 1 in 10 players win in these games.

Second of all, there are some examples of players who excel in most games. Off the top of my head, I would say Phil Ivey excels in all the games that are frequently played in a mixed game.

Also, I think it's kindof a give/take deal. If you do well in Hold'em and Stud, it is okay to give something up during the Omaha game/Stud 8 game.

Just my humble opinion.

-Huh [img]/forums/images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

[roGER]

Hello Sitting Bull,

I agree that very very few players are experts in more than two or three variations of poker, and an even smaller number can play at expert level in all the games.

However, I would raise 2 points:

1) I believe the number of winning players at poker is grossly under estimated by most people. I believe somewhere around 30% of players actually beat the game, with the caveat that some only beat it by a fraction of a small bet per hour.

2) The number of games (in terms of type of game) being spread in public cardrooms seems to be diminishing. Even in my short poker career (7 years) I've witnessed the death of Omaha high, and I've never seen draw poker, razz, or five and six card stud. In fact, I'll stick my neck out here and say in the real long term (say another 20 or 30 years) we may see the death of 7 card stud... So, my point would be, its not an advantage to play many types of poker at an expert level, simply because the game selection freedom this gives a player is disappearing.

- roGER

[mike l.]

"Now add another type of game to the players repertoire."

depends on the game. from what i understand it'd be easier to be an expert at a game like razz because sklansky has basically worked out a strategy for expert play. same may go for the limit version of games like 5 card draw, omaha high, and lowball.

as for the ten percent, i think that figure is an average for all games and all players. in some large markets like LA and online there may be considerably more winning players at the higher mid limits and up and far less than 10% in the higher raked low limit games and virtually none at the live microlimits. yet i still see many 1-2 games going at a place like hollywood park, so perhaps there is a wide player base that plays with little to no chance of beating the games long term.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Let's take the definition of "true expert" and say that Mason Malmuth and David Sklansky are true experts. Obviously, they've both written many books on the subject, so few would argue using them as examples of true experts.

Now, of poker players, say 10% of all players are winners. I doubt even 1% of these players would approach the level of expertise of our examples of true experts, even in just one game. However, many winning players are going to be so much better than the competition, that they need to be categorized somehow, in order to differentiate them from the rest. I like to think of them as "relative experts." I am not anything close to my definition of "true expert," but in most of the games I play, I am clearly the best player at the table. I've read virtually every book available on this site, and many of them I've read multiple times (like TOP). So relative to most of my opponents, I possess a level of expertise that far surpasses theirs. (I should mention that I avoid games full of tough players, preferring easy games full of weak or loose players).


"One simply does NOT have enough time in his life to improve to expert status in more than one type and structure game."

It's possible that they do, but not very likely. Mason is clearly an expert at several games. But very few people will put forth as much effort as he has in this area.

I think it's better to focus on becoming adept at a variety of games and structures, in order to become a well rounded player, who can apply basic concepts to different situations. If you have done your homework, and have lots of experience, you can probably achieve my definition of "relative expert" in most games you choose to sit in. True expert will remain a title for very few people indeed.

al