How good can a bad player ever be?

Chomp · #1 10-11-2007, 09:44 PM

It's going to be somewhat obvious - and somewhat embarrassing - that I am probably talking about myself here, but that's only kinda true, honest...

How good can a "bad" player ever be? Or, maybe "limited" player would be a better way of putting it.

For the sakes of argument, let's assume this player has no tilt issues, bankroll issues, gambling issues or other (semi-)extraneous problems like that. Let's also assume he has infinite commitment and desire to learn, so application isn't a problem. (Clearly, these are enormous assumptions, but let's make them anyway).

So this just leaves the issue of this player's dry technical ability to win money.

And how "limited" is this player? Well, he's not a drooler, it's just he doesn't feel the game in his bones. Everything he learns about the game and does at the table is a form of acting by rote: "I bet/bet/bet a set here", "I 3b my KK here", "my coach told me overs in a 3b pot are the nuts, so I'm going with my hand", "My outs give me 20% equity, I don't have the price, I fold".

But none of this is creative. None of it is instinctive...in fact, it may not be much more than knowing how to play 10 different types of hands/situations, and keeping your head down the rest of the time.

Now, of course one could say that I have just described an extremely good player: knowing when and how to do these simple things well is precisely the point of poker.

But my point is, absent of any further creativity, how good can this guy ever be? Is 400NL impossible? Is a wr of say 5ptbb/100 at 100NL as good as it gets?

I suppose another way of putting this is if you give the best coach in the world to the most willing and temperate, but least-talented, player in the world - where are they in a year's time?

Gonso · #2 10-11-2007, 10:06 PM

In this case, I would get him out of NL and into one of the fixed betting games.

Dromar · #3 10-11-2007, 10:47 PM

Honestly, I don't think it hurts you that much.

I agree with Gonso, that your limited abilities would be less noticeable/costly in a limit game.

But in all honesty, if you're dedicated, and work at it, you'll be better than most players, especially if you have no tilt or bankroll management issues. Another option is, over time, you may actually start to "feel the game in your bones."

ACG2x · #4 10-11-2007, 11:01 PM

A player as described should easily be able to beat any lower-middle limit games imo. As far as the whole "feeling the game in your bones", at those limits you don't really have to in order to simply win money. At these levels, it's often enough to just know "what to do" in a situation vs. "why you are/should be doing it".

However if you don't, you'll probably never become good enough to move up any higher as winning higher stakes poker often requires that internal instinct that you just can't teach. Either you have it or you don't.

Rek · #5 10-12-2007, 01:15 AM

I think such a player would become extremely good but I do not think such a player can exist. For a player to have "infinite commitment and desire to learn, so application isn't a problem" he has to have a love of the game - people with this will generally have a natural understanding.

tarheeljks · #6 10-12-2007, 02:26 AM

he'll be as good as he runs

Chomp · #7 10-12-2007, 07:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think such a player would become extremely good but I do not think such a player can exist. For a player to have "infinite commitment and desire to learn, so application isn't a problem" he has to have a love of the game - people with this will generally have a natural understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure this is true. Take for example people who play in a band...quite often rubbish bands with no chance of "making it" continue for years and years and years. All that sustains them in reality is "infinite committment", a love for the music they are trying to make, and the hope that somehow they will make it one day.

All of that is a triumph of will and application over ability, and I think the analogy to poker is reasonable.

Rek · #8 10-12-2007, 07:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think such a player would become extremely good but I do not think such a player can exist. For a player to have "infinite commitment and desire to learn, so application isn't a problem" he has to have a love of the game - people with this will generally have a natural understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure this is true. Take for example people who play in a band...quite often rubbish bands with no chance of "making it" continue for years and years and years. All that sustains them in reality is "infinite committment", a love for the music they are trying to make, and the hope that somehow they will make it one day.

All of that is a triumph of will and application over ability, and I think the analogy to poker is reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are true about rubbish bands that can go on forever. Doesn't make them good musicians though. More often they are still pretty poor but have their cult following.

mce86 · #9 10-12-2007, 08:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In this case, I would get him out of NL and into one of the fixed betting games.

[/ QUOTE ]

tmcdmck · #10 10-12-2007, 11:23 AM

I think they could be profitable all the way up to 10/20. I am assuming they are capable of learning from experience what certain moves likely mean, how to calculate equity vs likely hand ranges etc. But I think enough experience and dedication could make you profitable all the way into the high stakes with no real natural talent. just speculation on my behalf though