Explaining poker success

[businessdude]

So I have been playing poker for 3-4 years, and I think I have a pretty good grasp of the game having played and read books on the game. So when I look around the poker world see the famous live and online players, I have a hard time defining exactly why some players are "famous" and considered "great" players.

What I mean is when I see the guys play or hear them discuss poker or read an article they wrote, I don't see many clues that indicate the secret to their successes. In fact, a lot of times it seems the opposite is true - they seem not to undterstand some basic concepts of the game that are clear to so many players at 2p2.

For example, I was watching the strategy videos at cardplayer.com yesterday that are hosted by Jon Friberg (?) . He is a suppsed expert, yet he commented that he read Supersystem and some Sklansy books and "didn't really understand" them. (He did rec the HOH books though.) Even when you watch guys like Negreneau , Hellmuth, Hansen, Deeb etc. I come away thinking either "that's not really good poker" or "they just play standard good poker like a lot of people".

So how do you explain the huge success some players achieve while so many others of equal caliber never come close to reaching. When Isee a Tiger Woods or Greg Oden, I can see pretty clearly what seperates them from the pack, but I can't see it when I watch the poker scene.

So what's the explanation - just a few players got lucky early and leverage that luck into a bigger games, and then got even luckier still? Are the top players simply the 1/10,000 luckiest players - at least early in their careers?

[insyder19]

Negreneau and Hellmuth aren#t lucky, because if you notice that Hellmuth made it for 35th time into the money at the WSOP, that cannot be luck.

I think the difference is, that they make the right decisions in the BIG Pots, they are not scared to keep pushing with the better hand on a board like 78JK4, when they only have one pair or two, which obviously means that they win more money in those pots while others might just check them down (like me lol).

Even I say that there is NO LUCK in poker, not in the long term.

[Abbaddabba]

To recognize greatness, you have to be great.

Everything else is results based thinking.

[businessdude]

[ QUOTE ]
Even I say that there is NO LUCK in poker, not in the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but for some, if there is only bad luck in the short run, there might not be a long run. A guy like Jeff Madsen wins in the short run - lol, his first live torney - and he has a big bankroll, a sponsor, endorsements, and confidence. There were probably 50 other 21 year old players there as good as or better than him who didn;t make a dime and are still playing low stakes online. Sure, if Madsen is not really "good" he will fail, but the winning has given him the time and resources to focus on poker full time and many more subsequest opportunities to take his shots.

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
So I have been playing poker for 3-4 years, and I think I have a pretty good grasp of the game having played and read books on the game. So when I look around the poker world see the famous live and online players, I have a hard time defining exactly why some players are "famous" and considered "great" players.

What I mean is when I see the guys play or hear them discuss poker or read an article they wrote, I don't see many clues that indicate the secret to their successes. In fact, a lot of times it seems the opposite is true - they seem not to undterstand some basic concepts of the game that are clear to so many players at 2p2.

For example, I was watching the strategy videos at cardplayer.com yesterday that are hosted by Jon Friberg (?) . He is a suppsed expert, yet he commented that he read Supersystem and some Sklansy books and "didn't really understand" them. (He did rec the HOH books though.) Even when you watch guys like Negreneau , Hellmuth, Hansen, Deeb etc. I come away thinking either "that's not really good poker" or "they just play standard good poker like a lot of people".

So how do you explain the huge success some players achieve while so many others of equal caliber never come close to reaching. When Isee a Tiger Woods or Greg Oden, I can see pretty clearly what seperates them from the pack, but I can't see it when I watch the poker scene.

So what's the explanation - just a few players got lucky early and leverage that luck into a bigger games, and then got even luckier still? Are the top players simply the 1/10,000 luckiest players - at least early in their careers?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're comparing apples to oranges in some cases. Some of them didn't have books, the internet, poker forums, etc to learn from. They learned on the fly while sitting at a table. Therefore their skill set may be different from yours or at least look different. The average 2+2 poster grew up in the computer age with lots of tools to learn from & they play a certain way with a mathematical 'bend' to their game which is pretty obvious in the strat forums. Most have no people skills either. The only good example of this using name pros that I can think of is Jennifer Harman & Chris Ferguson. Jennifer isn't a real mathematical player (by her own admission) & uses her gut a lot to make decisions. Ferguson OTOH is a math/game theory guy. Two different styles but both successful.

So in a nutshell, just because it doesn't look right or sound right to a 2+2 type player doesn't mean it isn't effective. And some are just plain lucky in front of a TV camera.

[sh58]

LOL donkaments

[qpw]

I suspect it all comes down to how good they are with the subtleties of probability.

Not what they know about probability theory but how capable their personal neural nets are at adapting and processing the information they receive.

You sometimes see people say that once you get to a certain level probability becomes less important and knowing your opponent is paramount. To my mind this is complete and utter rubbish.

I think that at any particular level, if you can play well, then you have got to the point where you can at that level automatically and without conscious effort, process the probability problems 'by feel'. So you then need to concentrate on what you can determine about your opponents so that that information can be fed into the 'equations' that your own neural net is handling. This doesn't mean that probability is less important, just that it has become automatic - in the same way that steering a car never becomes unimportant but quickly becomes 'second nature'.

Obviously to be a really great player you will need a lot of skills. All of these can be taught and practiced to a certain degree, but the to become truly great you need to have the type of brain that will program itself to assimilate all the information available to you and accurately come up with an answer for which, so far, no mathematician who has studied the subject has been able to produce an algorithm.

[Valerio]

A lot of those players are great. They play technically well, even if they don't know the reasoning behind their play, and they play the player extremely well.

If you go through some of the problems in Harrington Volume 3, you will see hands played by some of these top players. Harrington explains the reasoning behind their plays, and you start to appreciate how complicated this game is; and how brilliant the top players really are.

The beauty of poker really is that weaker opponents often cannot tell when they are simply outmatched.

[paulnic]

i think what seperates the top top players from the merely good or average players is the speed at which they make decisions. if any of us had 10 minutes to think through each stage of a hand i imagine most of our decisions would be correct.

[Headblader]

Well to start these guys have been playing a lot longer than 3-4 years. Negreneau used to grind it out daily in Canadian casinos. They are fearless too, not afraid to lose everything they have in front of them if they think they have the right read.

Then you have a few internet pros, who haven't played as long live, but have been multi-tabling for a good bit. I think alot of that crowd is lucky as opposed to being really great.