Alan Goerhing
 

I was just reading Howard Lederer's article on him:
http://www.howardlederer.com/howard-...-article8.html

I find it interesting that he is so successful playing almost entirely counter to what most good players would recommend:

-Slowplaying big pairs as a rule, rather than an exception
-2xBB raising preflop
-min-reraising preflop with very marginal hands
-generally keeping postflop bets small in relation to the pot

Obviously he's been successful playing this way, but is it really an effective strategy on it's own, or just a method for exploiting weaker players?

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

TME,

Goehring is sick. Weak players and pros alike have trouble against him because nobody has any f clue what he has, but he's usually able to figure out what his opponents have (although sometimes he's wrong, as that article mentions). It's pretty sick.

He's on my shortlist of "guys I'd be actively pissed off to find at my first table of the WSOP main event."

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]

-generally keeping postflop bets small in relation to the pot

[/ QUOTE ]
He wins small pot after small pot thus keeping himself safe and not risking a lot of his chips. Isn't this the same tactic Hellmuth uses?

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

Haven't read the article yet, but...

I've played against Alan numerous times, and he's probably one of the most (if not the most) frustrating opponents I've ever faced...

Alan isn't scared to take big chances to get deep into a big event. He'll push really hard with marginal hands, and will even get all-in pre-flop with hands that are unlikely to be the best, knowing that if he can get lucky, he will likely go deep into the money.

He tends to do this a lot around the bubble, realizing that not only will he double up if he gets lucky on one of these hands, but also that he'll scare the s**t out of his opponents who will tighten up even more on the bubble just to keep from risking their tournament life before the money.

That seemingly wreckless attitude, combined with the fact that he's tough to read (he'll play any two cards for a min-raise -- including premium hands), makes him very tough to play against.

I've been wondering for years how he's so successful, but the gist is that he plays a big stack very, very well, and he's willing to take great chances to build a big stack. Sure, he'll get knocked out on the bubble a good bit of the time, but those times where he gets lucky and wins a big pot at the right time, he'll tend go deep into the money...


-Aces

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

I personally like the way he plays. Very Imagitive...not to many people have the guts to play this style of poker, but it's very successful and should be respected.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

Alan - What was the deal with your CardPlayer cover pic? You looked like a corpse.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

I don't understand why he gets hated on so much for his style of play. He has had more success then about 98.9% of the posters here. Not to mention the fact that people HATE playing with him because of his style and how hard he is to put on a hande. Is that not +EV to have opponents on gaurd the minute they see you at their table.

It seems most people in this forum simply discount or degrade any poker style that doesn't mirror a Sklansky,Malmuth,Zee,or Miller writing.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]


most people in this forum simply discount or degrade any poker style that doesn't mirror a Sklansky,Malmuth,Zee,or Miller writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

My take is that Alan Goerhing is the "Jim Furyk" of the poker world. If that analogy doesn't make sense to you, Jim Furyk is a very successful golfer with a highly unortodox swing who is close but not quite at the Tiger Woods/Phil Mickelson level. Just as almost no golf pro would teach you the "Jim Furyk" swing, almost no poker book or poker coach will try to teach you the "Alan Goerhing" style of tournament poker, as most of us would fail miserably trying to emulate it.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

you guys (and by guys i mean low count posters) talk up to the respected posters here like you know more about poker strategy than they do. when respected posters who are making alot of money see poker players doing things that would not win in the games they play in, they often feel it can be wrong. so many of these famous tournament pros are not very good at poker. tournaments revolve around alot of luck and the caliber of opposition in these large buyin tournaments is very mediocre. id like to see how alan goerhing would fare in internet cash games instead of playing against fields of subpar tournament players.

i want to be clear however, i dont know much of anything about alan's style and have absolutely no idea how good of a player he is. he could be great for all i know. im simply pointing out that i see so many posters who clearly have a lack of knowledge about the game glorify famous poker pros and chastise internet experts who criticize them, and it bothers me because you clearly dont have the knowledge they do so what gives you the right to argue them? there is a difference between a good play and a bad play, and a good player might have the utility to properly analyze the difference. that doesnt necessarily mean they fit into a certain mold of player and cant think outside the box. of course there are different styles of nl and alan can probably manipulate his opponents very well. its also possible that alan has a lack of fundamental poker knowledge but his excellent hand reading skills carry him to greatness. the same could be said for phil hellmuth.

id imagine that anyone here who knows enough about alan goerhing that would be willing to criticize his play are excellent internet players who dont play a "S,M,Z,M" style of poker. btw, id probably bet on alan goerhing in a poker tournament over any of the aforementioned poker authors. i hope that doesnt come off as disrespectful.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

What internet "experts" are chastising him? The criticism in the two plus two forums seems to be coming from no names. I think most of the experts would say Alan's style is something that most shouldn't try to imitate but appears to be successful. He plays postflop better than most can. From his statements it looks like he has given more thought to his playing style and how others perceive him than just about anyone.

As for playing internet players, I believe he mentioned his style doesn't suit internet tournaments with the fast moving and big blinds. That it is more geared to deeper stack tournaments.

Either way, it seems pretty ridiculous to be critical of someone that has been as successful as he is without having any knowledge of how or why he plays the way he does.

Eric

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

TStone,

The one real problem I have with your post (and the mentality that follows it) is that for some reason, you (and a lot of you 10000 post colleagues) are unwilling to let people be fans of the game. They play poker, like poker, wish they were better at poker and hold a lot of respect for the people they see playing it better and bigger on TV.

I think Babe Ruth is greatest player in baseball history. I never had the pleasure of watching him play, but it's not the label that makes fandom fun, its the speculation. It makes the game more interesting to watch and lets the 50 mph-throwing all-star vicariously be on the field. Declaring Ruth the greatest then arguing with Cobb, Mays, Bonds et all supporters is good times. Does that declaration make it gospel? No, it's just a voicing of opinion. Amazingly, I've never gotten a call from a minor league manager screaming about my ignorance on the subject.

Poker's gotten big enough that some people want to celebrate it that way. They have jobs and families and exams and don't have the time to put into it what you have. They still like the game and the big money flying around and can't afford to play at that level so they watch and enjoy it. Like with any other televised game, they pick their favorites to live through, at least until some bully comes around trying to stomp them out

The thing that strikes me as stupid is that these speculations are the best thing in the world for you; they underestimate the online masters because they aren't seeing them on TV; the all-in fest of tv makes people play poorly; the rush of fans to the table gives you more fish to feed on. It loans to the continued growth of the game (when some of your colelagues seem to be in a hurry to end it already), both as a competition and cultural phenomenon.

I can't see a single thing that your post accomplishes. Congratulations, you've shut up fifty people in the gossip forum who want to enjoy televised poker. You're older and wiser and more knowledgeable than most of the three-digit posters, so try acting that way; sit back, let them have their fun, smile at their innocence and be content with knowing you know better. You're biting the hand that feeds you.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]
tournaments revolve around alot of luck and the caliber of opposition in these large buyin tournaments is very mediocre. id like to see how alan goerhing would fare in internet cash games instead of playing against fields of subpar tournament players.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is nonsense. Tournament game is different enough from cash game, that you can't make these kind of comparisons. It is possible to be a great tournament player and subpar cash game player at the same time. Alan's game is obviously geared toward tournaments, where he can apply chip stack disparity to get pots he'd never get in a cash game. To that end, he takes gambles to create these chips stack disparities. Those gambles would be losing propositions in cash games, where utility of each chip is the same throughout the game, but in tournaments utility of each chip changes all the time. To say "oh, but he would lose a lot of money in cash games playing like that" says nothing about his tournament play prowess.

And where do you get that idea about level of play in big buy-in tournaments? It almost by definition has to be quite a good deal better than in lower buy-in tournaments. If you compare level of play in big buy-in tournaments to that in largish internet cash games, that's akin to comparing levels of play in British Soccer premier league and NCAA basketball. Yes, any NCAA team will kick any soccer team's ass at hoops, but what does that say about the soccer players' skills at soccer?

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

i think my post sends off the wrong message to you. everyone has to come to their own conclusion about every topic in the universe that presents itself whether conscienciously or unconscienciously. as a result, discussion may ensue.

however, the problem i have is that i will often see someone with limited poker knowledge slander someone with a more extensive knowledge because he critiqued a player as not being as talented as the media suggests. in this case, the poster i replied to said that the people who would say alan goerhing isnt good only say that because they cant think outside of a 2p2 poker author mentality.

in many cases, thats ridiculous. ill often see someone who i respect as a knowledgeable poker player say that a professional poker pro isnt nearly as talented as the poker media suggests. you will then a see 100 post twoplustwo bash him and accuse them of saying such a thing out of sheer jealously. of course, this 100 post twoplustwoer might be a fantastic player but i assume that most of these people just base their opinions on how talented a famous player is based on a tournament hes won or whatever mike sexton said on tv.

my point is that alot of the players you see on television arent nearly as good as youre being told. there are alot of fantastic poker players in big buyin tournaments that weve never heard about because they havent been blessed with the same variance that alan has. i suspect most of these fantastic players are internet players. likewise, there are many sensational internet poker players who would be enormous favorites in these big buyin tournaments, yet they dont enter them regularly because they arent worth their time. they make more money killing the online games.

that is why when i see a random person bash a knowledgeable poker player for assessing his opinion saying that he just has cookie cutter thinking it bothers me. the poster i replied to here didnt direct his comments at any specific poster and so my post isnt directed specifically at him, but for those who ridicule others for critiquing a famous poker player's ability when those ridiculers arent as skilled as the ones critiquing. simply, his cookie cutter comment referring to 2p2 authors put a needle through my head.


i think its fine that you idolize professional poker players the way you do baseball players. thats great that youre a fan of the game. creating superstars out of poker players is making the game great for us professionals. i have no intention of tearing apart alan as again i know nothing about him, but i suspect neither does the aforementioned poster who preemptively insulted anyone who attemps to criticize alan in this thread. he seems to think alan is a world-class poker just because hes won some tournaments.

also, my opinion that there are alot of mediocre big buyin players is based on a few reasons. first, these tournaments are regularly getting over 500 players. most of these people are satellite winners. surely these 500 players are not all excellent players. i have personally done some spectating of 2 wpt events during day 1 and 2, and while i have not had the opportunity to play in them (i just turned 21), i would say that from what ive seen, there are alot of subpar players.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

OK, point taken. You're right that the person saying 'questioning Alan's skills is retarded' is being pretty closed-minded. I guess in a way they're doing the surpressing I thought you were.

I do think poker's is a broader spectrum than some established 2+2ers make it out to be (At least, I think the live game's is), so I kind of understand his point. He definitely could have stated it in a more enlightened way, but hey, hyperbole is a big part of the fan process, isn't it? I guess the higher man in the food chain stomping on it is too:)

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

Erick Lindgren's book describes the same kind of play. I think Daniel plays a similar game.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

Its not necessarily true that the 10K buy in fields are weaker than lower buy ins.
I would argue that the 10K fields are stonger than the 1K to 3K events help prior to the main WPT events. These events only draw 100 - 300 as opposed to the 500 plus for the WPT. My assumption, is that 1K to 2K type events mostly draw fairly serious players. THe WPT events draw in some wealthy people who are not necessarily the most experienced players. (im not saying this is the majority of the field - but having played in a few events you definitely encounter this type of player).

So, yeah i feel the 10K events do draw weaker fields than some smaller buy in events. Mostly because some non serious players like to enter these things. not really on topic but thats my opinion.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is completeley untrue that the 10K buy in fields are weaker than lower buy ins.

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

dont know if youre interpretting my posts as saying that 10k fields are weaker than 3k fields. i didnt say that. im just saying that the 10k buyin fields have mediocre players. yet it is possible that the 3k players are tougher overall in some cases as 10k buyin tournaments are filled with satellite entrants while 3k tournaments are filled with direct buyins. while you wont see as many superstars in the 3k tournaments, the overall difficulty could conceivably be higher. i have nothing to base this on other than this logic.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

Yeah my previous post made about zero sense. But what i was trying to say is the 10K WPT events do draw some unexperienced poker players. I feel the 10K event fields are weaker than the 1k to 2K fields.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems most people in this forum simply discount or degrade any poker style that doesn't mirror a Sklansky,Malmuth,Zee,or Miller writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be antagonistic... just trying to avoid having words put into my mouth: Where did any of us (2+2 authors) say Alan Goehring's style is bad?

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

TStone,

Alan Goehring plays tournaments almost exclusively because he enjoys them. He plays poker for enjoyment and thus sticks with what he finds most +Entertainment EV, so he sticks with major tournaments with deep structures.

I believe he would do well in a deep cash game, but I have nothing to go by on this other than extrapolation. I think he would have to certainly adjust, however. I would imagine his style of play would not work online for obvious reasons.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

alot is two words. A lot.
A lot of people have opinions, even people that know less than you.
A lot of the internet pro's are cheats, and it's like steroids where you have to prove otherwise that cheating is not part of your game. Otherwise go play live and clean up like you do with your friends playing a video game where you have the cheat codes.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems most people in this forum simply discount or degrade any poker style that doesn't mirror a Sklansky,Malmuth,Zee,or Miller writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be antagonistic... just trying to avoid having words put into my mouth: Where did any of us (2+2 authors) say Alan Goehring's style is bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know you're style of play but my assumption was he's saying you play differently than Alan. Therefore people around here will say it isn't the right way to play.

In a round about way I'd take it as a compliment.

Quite the opposet of what I should think when people point at me and say "He looks like he could eat the whole shrimp store".

or

"The ocean called and it want's it's shrimp back".

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems most people in this forum simply discount or degrade any poker style that doesn't mirror a Sklansky,Malmuth,Zee,or Miller writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be antagonistic... just trying to avoid having words put into my mouth: Where did any of us (2+2 authors) say Alan Goehring's style is bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know you're style of play but my assumption was he's saying you play differently than Alan. Therefore people around here will say it isn't the right way to play.

In a round about way I'd take it as a compliment.

Quite the opposet of what I should think when people point at me and say "He looks like he could eat the whole shrimp store".

or

"The ocean called and it want's it's shrimp back".

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but I wanted to make it clear that nowhere, never have I criticized Alan Goehring or his play.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of the internet pro's are cheats, and it's like steroids where you have to prove otherwise that cheating is not part of your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you're an internet player you are presumed to be a cheater? That's like saying any baseball player on the west coast is on steroids until they play for a team outside of California. Brilliant.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]
My take is that Alan Goerhing is the "Jim Furyk" of the poker world. If that analogy doesn't make sense to you, Jim Furyk is a very successful golfer with a highly unortodox swing who is close but not quite at the Tiger Woods/Phil Mickelson level. Just as almost no golf pro would teach you the "Jim Furyk" swing, almost no poker book or poker coach will try to teach you the "Alan Goerhing" style of tournament poker, as most of us would fail miserably trying to emulate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post and accurate anology, Tom.

I watched the Wed broadcast headup action again just now. I had forgotten how beside himself Sexton was trying to figure out and explain to Vince (and the viewers) how Alan could have played that K8o for $6 million in chips.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

Ed,

Not putting words in your mouth at all!

Actually the post was not intended to speak for any of the 2+2 authors. My apologizes if it came across that way.

It was simply a statement refering to how, it seems to me , that most of the posters on this site will put down a stlye that doesn't fall in line with one of yours, Mason's or David's writings.

I think that is a fair comment. Sorry for the confusion.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

TStone,

Wasn't saying that AG's style is correct or incorrect. I'm simply challenging the idea that there are other styles then S,M,M,& Z's and people should not be degraded if they don't follow those styles.

Hopefully one soon day I will have 4 digit posts and therefore will be worthy of stating my opinion on this forum.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

Yes just like baseball. Call me Jose

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]

I watched the Wed broadcast headup action again just now. I had forgotten how beside himself Sexton was trying to figure out and explain to Vince (and the viewers) how Alan could have played that K8o for $6 million in chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to read Goehring's explanation for a context of the situation:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=5953614

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I watched the Wed broadcast headup action again just now. I had forgotten how beside himself Sexton was trying to figure out and explain to Vince (and the viewers) how Alan could have played that K8o for $6 million in chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to read Goehring's explanation for a context of the situation:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=5953614

[/ QUOTE ]

understatement of the year - Alan played short-stack strategy vs his opponent - makes total sense the way he described it.

I don't know the hand, but the only way this hand could be taking up so much noise is if Alan accidently ran into a better hand and sucked out -

that always pisses off the poker elite - [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] - I use elite loosely of course.

RB

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

i would say hellmuth tries to play a similar style. Despite what people think he is not an ultra tight conservative player.
The only difference is when people play back at Hellmuth he folds way way too often. I think i read an article where Daniel said Hellmuth was much better when he was younger because he did not back off pots as easy as now.
In order to play the small bet style most effectively i think you have to show that you cant get bluffed easily because otherwiese your small bets dont work.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]
i want to be clear however, i dont know much of anything about alan's style and have absolutely no idea how good of a player he is. he could be great for all i know.

[/ QUOTE ]

...fair enough.


[ QUOTE ]
btw, id probably bet on alan goerhing in a poker tournament over any of the aforementioned poker authors. i hope that doesnt come off as disrespectful.

[/ QUOTE ]

what???

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I watched the Wed broadcast headup action again just now. I had forgotten how beside himself Sexton was trying to figure out and explain to Vince (and the viewers) how Alan could have played that K8o for $6 million in chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to read Goehring's explanation for a context of the situation:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=5953614

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, undiscovered gem from that thread:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
heh I thought the idea around here was not to be results oriented

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, you are right. My old habit of playing bad and winning money is nothing more than a vicious addiction that feeds on itself and can not be easily broken. Note to self-----seek help immediatley.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

I think Allen was rich before poker. It is alot easier to gamble up a big tourney when your already wealthy.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

Wow, too much to comment on in this thread.

1. "Is it an effective strategy or just a method for exploiting weaker players?"

It is an effective strategy. The toughest field (100+) per capita in my opinion was the 2003 WPT $25k Championship, an event I won (runner up was Monte Carlo Millions 2005).

2. Quality of players in $10k vs $1k.

Easy answer, $10k tougher on average. Almost all people in $1k and $2k are locals. The $10k's comprise winners of live satellites, online satellites, and direct buy-ins (generally the best players nationally along with the better local players that didn't satellite in). All three sub-groups are better than the $1k and $2k players, on average. In exceptional circumstances a lower buy-in event can have a tougher field (e.g. WSOP $5k NL clearly tougher than WSOP $10k NL per capita, and the $5k Bellagio might be tougher than the $25k starting in 2006).

3. Unorthodox style & getting hated --- I certainly don't feel hated. There is a VERY SMALL group of players that think they are the best & are all knowing, and therefore it must be either "their way or the wrong way". I am certainly not going to criticize Dan Harrington because he plays different than me. As Howard Lederer pointed out, there can be different winning styles. I have noted on this forum that criticizing individual hands in a vacuum often leads to the wrong conclusion. I make more than my share of -EV plays by design for a VARIETY of reasons---- I would call myself an "ultra tricky" player, it doesn't mean I misplayed the hand. BTW, I don't care if people criticize my play (and it is perfectly OK if they think I am a terrible player), that is part of what discussion forums are about. I never said I was a great player or even a good player, I have only claimed that I have won money in the past.

4. My style being compared to Phil Hellmuth --- we have somewhat similar bet sizes, but that's about the only thing that is similar. We play very different hands from various positions, and play the hands quite differently after the flop. He puts a big emphasis on making great laydowns, I do not. Saying I play the same as Hellmuth makes me want to puke (no offense Phil), I would consider my game much more complex and myself a significantly better deep chip player. My style is closer to Carlos Mortensen or Daniel Negraneu.

5. Playing internet/live cash games --- simply not going to happen (Not trying to be a snob, just too much like "work", I would work on Wall Street if I wanted a job). BTW, I believe I would do quite well as I love to play at over 100x BB, and cash games are similar to the early stages of a $10k event. I think cash games require far more skill than smaller buy-in tourneys as well as the later stages of big buy-in events.

6. Emulating my play --- don't do it! For example, I believe opening PF for 2xBB total is optimal (for me, or I wouldn't do it), but probably would hurt most people since there are many other things we will do differently. Trying to emulate Gus Hansen would probably be a disaster for 99%+ of all players.

7. On having experienced extreme positive variance --- thanks for making assumptions, only time will tell. I don't think anyone in the world can maintain on a sustainable basis the 800%+ return ($4.6mm gross winnings) I have experienced in $10k & up events. My goal, after having fun, is to maintain the same top 10%/5%/1% finish/(cash) rates on $10k+ events I have experienced to date (14/9/3 based on 46-48 "attempts"), (second goal is to win $1mm in a single event----over/under is the end of 2009).

The end!

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]

6. Emulating my play --- don't do it! For example, I believe opening PF for 2xBB total is optimal (for me, or I wouldn't do it), but probably would hurt most people since there are many other things we will do differently. Trying to emulate Gus Hansen would probably be a disaster for 99%+ of all players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Alan,

While I am sure the answer to this may be complicated, do you think you could briefly given an indication of the types of quality the 1% of players need to make this style effective?

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

Alan, I doubt your style would work as well in cash games, because a lot of your power comes from people being scared to put in their stack. I think there's a pretty easy counter to your min opens, which is just reraising you strong preflop with anything decent. Most tournament donks don't want to do this because they're committing a lot of their stack, but in cash games you can risk your stack and rebuy if necessary. Anyway, it would be fun to see, you should drop by a High Stakes Poker session some time!

[ QUOTE ]

4. My style being compared to Phil Hellmuth --- we have somewhat similar bet sizes, but that's about the only thing that is similar. ...


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, indeed. Phil seems to try to risk the minimum, probing at the pot to get people to define their hands, then only putting a lot of chips at risk when he's very sure he's way ahead. You on the other hand disguise your hand and try to catch people and you're perfectly willing to risk your whole stack if you think you have an edge. I think you float OOP with something like AQ because you know if you hit an A or Q they won't expect it and you'll risk a ton of chips there.

Seems like you have some of the "Gigabet" concepts at work, taking -EV risks in some hands to try to get a big stack, because your overall equity if you can get a big stack is better than just the chip count would indicate.

Re: Alan Goerhing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

6. Emulating my play --- don't do it! For example, I believe opening PF for 2xBB total is optimal (for me, or I wouldn't do it), but probably would hurt most people since there are many other things we will do differently. Trying to emulate Gus Hansen would probably be a disaster for 99%+ of all players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Alan,

While I am sure the answer to this may be complicated, do you think you could briefly given an indication of the types of quality the 1% of players need to make this style effective?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding Gus you would need all the normal things (extremely smart, quick mind, great hand reading, etc.).

The two most difficult things would be,
1. Complete fearlessness plus more---not caring at all about the money (no matter how big the pot), while at the same time caring passionately about playing your best and winning is extremely difficult (after all, why care if no money is involved, isn't money the reason most people play?). I call it "controlled recklessness"---two contradictory qualities needed at the same time (most people are either too controlled or too reckless).

2. Natural Intangible --- can't be acquired. It is the way your mind works & how you think (partly it is having a "knack" for doing the right thing at the right time). Don't laugh, but being left handed would help.

Just my 2cents