Question about beating good players vs. cannot beat bad players

[PokerTheorist]

Often there are posts on this forum indicating that if one were to move up limits they would win more. It usually follows some type of harangue about too many players staying in or calling to the river. They reason that players at higher limits are better and therefore
they would do better.

My question is why would anyone think this is true? I have never seen this type of comment in any other competitive area. For example it would be asinine to state that I can't beat slow runners but I can beat fast runners.

Can anyone think of any competetive game or sport where one would have a better chance of winning by competing against better players? Team play aside.

[HoneyBadger]

[ QUOTE ]
Often there are posts on this forum indicating that if one were to move up limits they would win more.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because they think this doesn't make it true. Imo this never actually true.

[sean c]

PT,

No one seriously says this on these forums. You will always have a higher win rate against bad players than you will good players. Whoever said this was probably making fun of someone starting a thread that complained about playing against bad players.

[PokerTheorist]

[ QUOTE ]

No one seriously says this on these forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

For example:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post8984887

[HoneyBadger]

Yes, and in that same thread it was explained why this isn't true [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[PokerTheorist]

Agreed. I certainly do not think it is true.

My question was more general however. Does anyone have a response to my actual questions?

[HoneyBadger]

oh they think this because it makes them feel better. Let's face it, nobody wants to be a loser on the micros. So they tell themselves they are actually really good, the opponents are just too bad.

[buriedbeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I certainly do not think it is true.

My question was more general however. Does anyone have a response to my actual questions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, then the answer to your question in OP is clearly "no." In no area of life do you gain an advantage by competing against stronger opponents. People say that they lose because of the opposition being bad all the time in poker. It isn't true. When people say it, you just shrug and say, "yeah, I guess so," because they can't be talked out of it until they play against people who are good and get their heads handed to them in a yet-more violent manner.

edit: and as to why people say this, it's to preserve ego. It feels bad when you lose, and it's nice to think that you're losing because you're skilled. And not just skilled, TOO skilled for your competition.

-bb.

[jjshabado]

Your question is a little weird, but you can come up with some scenarios where it would be true (kind of).

If you have 3 players in some game that involves making some number of choices. 1 player takes a completely random strategy. Another player has a specific strategy that does better than random. A third player is so good that he can pick up on strategies and exploit them very quickly.

Its possible that player 1 gets beaten by player 2 and player 3, and is thus the worst player. But player 2 gets crushed by player 3 because 3 always figures out a strategy that dominates the one 2 is using. So 3 does alright against 1 but can't use his skills against the random plays (aside from picking a strategy that does better than random, but he doesn't do as well as he does against player 2 who is arguably better than player 1.

Consider it a game based on the idea that sometimes a little knowledge is worse than complete ignorance.

[Rastadon]

Add a rake, tips and BBJ and maybe player 3 cant beat a game full of player 1s.