Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players

[teaulc]

Most people assume a good poker player is a winning poker player and vice versa. I don't think this is right, but differentiating between them is a bit tricky - maybe more than you think. A "winning" player is one who, over enough time and a sufficient number of hands for the data to be statistically reliable, takes more money off the table than he puts on it. "Good" is trickier. You can be a good player without being a winning player. I know, that feels a little weird. It isn't. A couple of weeks back I did a little pop psychology riff o Zen. We mused on the affective elements of the game, looking for ways to maintain emotional equilibrium no matter what was happening. In essence, we were looking at ways to become a "good" player. If this also made you into a "winning" player, that would be cool, but it's not necessary and certainly not guaranteed. Indeed, figuring out what makes a "good" player isn't straightforward. For starters, good poker players have fun, and they'd better - because they're almost certainly going to lose. Very few come out ahead over the long haul, due to differing skill levels and/or the house rake, the "vig." Many (most?) players don't quite grasp the role the vig plays in low-stakes games where the vast majority of players are found. In a $2/$4 limit game, the typical maximum rake is from a reasonable $3 to a crushing $5, and I've seen $6! Add the dealer's tip and the bad beat jackpot takeout that players have a preternatural (and unfortunate) affection for, and up to 2BBs get sliced out of each sizable pot. This rake is essentially impossible to overcome. So, while it'd be nice to be a winning player, the truth is that most of you won't be. So don't sweat it. Poker is, at heart, a form of recreation. Recreation costs money. Movies cost, tickets to a hockey game cost, a dinner out costs. We are all perfectly content to "lose" money in our preferred forms of recreation, and "good" poker players view the game in just this way. Good players think about the game. A lot. Good players also think about the game, how they're playing, how others are playing. They read, talk with friends and contribute to the dozens of Internet chat rooms and discussion groups. If you're not already active in one of these groups, join in. You'll find an astonishing array of smart, engaging people - and, of course, the occasional flame-thrower. Just ignore them. Good players treat poker like a hobby, where you keep learning and look to improve. Good players also work to diminish variance. There's a natural fluctuation to the game, and everyone is going to have ups and downs, but the game is far easier to enjoy when the swings are modulated. Lowering variance also makes it easier to play your best game more of the time. Few things derail the average player more than a huge hit to their bankroll. One aspect of the game that gets lost in a lot of these discussions is that poker is likely the most complex competitive game routinely played. It is more complex, has more interwoven strategic levels and is tougher to master than any of the other supposedly intricate games like bridge and chess. You chess mavens out there can scream all you want, but if you understand both games at anything close to a deep level, you know what I'm talking about. OK; now you see how you can be a "good" player without being a "winning" player. Can you be a "winning" player but not be a "good" player? Absolutely. There won't be many of this breed, but they are out there. My guess - since I've got no data here I'm running on my own fumes - is that there are at least three kinds of winning players who are not particularly good players. First, there are the highly aggressive players with little regard for money, ones who view the game as a deadly competition, or a parade ground for their egos. These guys (and they are almost always men) can be long-term winners from a strictly cash point of view but not be good players in anything like the descriptions above. Their visits to tiltville will undercut their game. The stress that comes with approaching each session with such a highly tuned competitiveness will eventually take its toll. And, most critically, the high variability that a playing style like this carries with it will mean that this type of player will often not be playing his A-game. Most of these "action junkies" won't be winning players 10 years down the road unless they make serious adjustments. Then there are the unmovable rocks, the tightest of the tight. Their style will ultimately yield a positive EV so, by definition, they are "winning" players. If a min-cash falls in the forest, does anybody hear it? But they will not be "good" players. They are often skinflints who play every day looking to grind out a couple of bucks for lunch, the car payment, rent. They're not having fun, and don't enjoy themselves - when they play poker, they are essentially going to work. They have no A-game, because they are so protective of their bankrolls that they stay at B level. That's OK for them, but I wouldn't want to spend my life this way. Lastly, there are folks like me. I'm a long-term positive EV guy. I know this because I keep records and am brutally honest with myself. But I don't think I am a good player. In fact, I am a better poker writer than a poker player. I have too many brain farts, moments where I flatline and do something mind-bendingly stupid. When these mental lacunae happen they undo hours and hours of "good" play. Worse, I get really, really ticked at myself and end up howling at the moon like a wolf who's lost his kill. In these moments I do not have fun and so, by my definition, I am not a "good" player. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Author Bio: Arthur Reber has been a poker player and serious handicapper of thoroughbred horses for four decades. He is the author of The New Gambler's Bible and coauthor of Gambling for Dummies. Formerly a regular columnist for Poker Pro Magazine and Fun 'N' Games magazine, he has also contributed to Card Player (with Lou Krieger), Poker Digest, Casino Player, Strictly Slots and Titan Poker. He outlined a new framework for evaluating the ethical and moral issues that emerge in gambling for an invited address to the International Conference of Gaming and Risk Taking. Until recently he was the Broeklundian Professor of Psychology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Among his various visiting professorships was a Fulbright fellowship at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Now semiretired, Reber is a visiting scholar at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

[GaF]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players What a load of Nonsense!! (Sorry Al - I know you didn't write it :ok) Good players are players who have the highest score over a statistically significant sample - they're players who can take everything into account to maximise their score and get a higher score than their opponents. If their score isn't high enough, then they're not considering all of the factors properly. Score is money won. If you're a big winning player over a large enough sample, then you have a high score and are a good player. If you dont, then you are a bad player (even if you are capable of deeper thinking than other players and only lose because, for example, you tilt) Whilst I kind of see where the author is coming from, he's trying to make a point where there isnt one of any significance. (Either that or I'm missing the point totally) The point was far better and more accurately expressed by Nick Wealthall in this months Poker Player mag (though not exactly deep, ground breaking thinking....)

[teaulc]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players ah,but it is so good to get a reaction,which is what these threads are all about.

[Samba_SamPa]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players They should be about insightful strategic help imo, not provocation of a reaction

[teaulc]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players

They should be about insightful strategic help imo' date=' not provocation of a reaction[/quote'] a mixture of both can be insightful

[trips]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players Not sure if it was Brunson who said in his book he knows a lot of very good loosing players ,he also knows a lot of players who are not as good as these players but do win at the game, reason was game selection, the loosing player chose to play at games at higher stakes against players who were level or better than his skill level. the winning player knew his limitatations and chose his games more wisely only playing smaller stakes against worse players. So yes a good player can be a loosing player and a worse player can be a winning player. A player can be very good at Poker but he still needs to play players just below his skill level.

[megagyger]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players i see exactly where the writer of the article is coming from everytime i go to the casino. even in smaller home games the same people seem get lucky through horrible play more times than they should, and make them winning players but not good ones. i dont agree with what he says about rock players being bad. in fairness we all love to be at a table with these guys but they do follow the maths of the game so therefore would make them thinkers of the game and be reasonably good.

[GaF]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players

reason was game selection, the loosing player chose to play at games at higher stakes against players who were level or better than his skill level. the winning player knew his limitatations and chose his games more wisely only playing smaller stakes against worse players. So yes a good player can be a loosing player and a worse player can be a winning player. A player can be very good at Poker but he still needs to play players just below his skill level.

But table selection is an essential skill of a good poker player isn't it? If someone is poor at table selection, then it is a weakness in their game strategy and they are a worse player because of it. If their table selection is so bad that it is causing them to be a losing player, then overall, they are a bad player because they lack the necessary skills (table selection) to beat their opponents. Someone else who does have this skill, is a better player in my book, even if he would lose every time in a heads up match against the first described player. "Discipline" is one of the most important skills needed in being a winning poker player IMO, if you havent got it, then you're a weaker player than someone who has got it. Table selection is just one way that you can demonstrate your discipline at the poker table.

[GaF]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players

even in smaller home games the same people seem get lucky through horrible play more times than they should' date=' and make them winning players but not good ones.[/quote'] Sorry - not wishing to be too blunt about it - but I view that as utter nonsense! If someone gets more lucky against you than they should, over a large enough sample size, then they are actually not getting lucky - rather you are not understanding what they are doing and/or you are not adopting the right counter strategy against their style of play. You are making the wrong adjustments to what you perceive they are doing. EVERY winning player (over enough hands) is a better player than every losing player (over enough hands) - because they are doing what is necessary to relieve you of your money.

[glceud]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players

Someone else who does have this skill, is a better player in my book, even if he would lose every time in a heads up match against the first described player.

Sorry - not wishing to be too blunt about it - but I view that as utter nonsense! There's always been something missing in your game and I thought it was just a fear of gambling. But you seem to be afraid of much more. I cant put my finger on it but there is something in your post that needs addressing. But then perhaps your quite happy as long as you know were your next loaf of bread is coming from.;)

[GaF]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players :) Unfortunately - you're spot on, definitely loads missing in my game :( I dont want to gamble - I want to beat the game I'm playing (and I perceive that to be your mentality as well?) Don't you hate poker, but play it just for your next loaf of bread?

[glceud]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players Yes but I have accepted that keeping my family in bread is the total limit of my game but I am not even too sure that will be sustainable for much longer. You have via all your challenges proven that you can win a loaf of bread at a vast variety of different poker formats but havent dared gamble that some cake might be quite nice too. At least when I was a better than "average" player I took plenty shots at cream buns and even some eclairs;) My times been and gone and these days I need 100% overlay to be profitable at MTTS and even my bread and butter cash game is in danger of going the wrong side of break even.

[glceud]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players

:) I want to beat the game I'm playing (and I perceive that to be your mentality as well?)

Not so sure anymore:eyes

[GaF]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players

but havent dared gamble that some cake might be quite nice too.

Cake makes me fat ;) :p I hear you - but honestly - my overall results arent as good as everyone on PL seems to perceive. I've had my moments (and yes, it does always seem to be when I'm doing challenges :lol :lol) but I really dont find it easy to win consistently. Maybe I'm just "lucky" sometimes ;)

[megagyger]

Re: Poker Psychology - "GOOD Players" vs WINNING Players

Sorry - not wishing to be too blunt about it - but I view that as utter nonsense! If someone gets more lucky against you than they should, over a large enough sample size, then they are actually not getting lucky - rather you are not understanding what they are doing and/or you are not adopting the right counter strategy against their style of play. You are making the wrong adjustments to what you perceive they are doing. EVERY winning player (over enough hands) is a better player than every losing player (over enough hands) - because they are doing what is necessary to relieve you of your money.

no, although the sample size is very small, believe me its bad play, calling against the odds when thier behind, outraouges calls deep into the tournament, ex set mining with low pairs with a huge chunk of their stack, we both know its very hard to understand what someone is doing if they dont have a clue what their at themselves.