How do you define a “good” player?

[Doji Style]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately, the other day I spent quite a bit of time in my car and was listening to the Poker Road Cash Plays Podcast and they constantly talk about this guy and that guy being good. I kept thinking, this guys on vacation and this is the one and only session he has had with this player, how has he arrived at this conclusion? Then last weekend I was playing in a local tournament and this guy says “he’s really good, he’s going to win this thing” refereeing to me. At this point were like four levels deep and he’s seen one hand of mine and played zero pots with me. Truth be told I am horrible tournament player and was not playing well either, I just hit a few flops up to this point.

Now for whatever reason it’s quite easy to spot shitty players but what is the criteria to really give someone the credit for being a great player? I would almost have to assume that this will be two different descriptions for cash and tournament. I think a lot of people would be quick to look at results as being a leading indicator but I can’t agree with that logic. I don’t put much weight in to bracelets or winning titles, however take someone like Helmuth or anyone else who has cashed an ungodly amount of times in tournaments (or a bona fide career cash player) and you may have a solid argument. I just don’t know. With this exponential growth of poker in the last decade, I feel like its skews the skill due to some guys running hot. Doyle hasn't run hot for 60 years, Helmuth hasn't been hot for 20, etc. As much as I hate Helmuth, I always tend to agree with him when he says “we’ll see where you are in 10 years.”

So essentially I am asking how YOU quantify this in the moment, not in hindsight when you can look at past results and so forth.

Is it someone who simply plays ABC, or with few leaks?

Is it someone who appears to be adapting there play to the table very well?

What would convince you that this individual you’re playing against isn’t a donk? It kind of feels like a dumb question but when I sit here and think about it, I can’t arrive at a clear conclusion.

[J4bberW0cky]

Instead of a good/bad dichotomy we need more categories to say anything interesting. There's just too much variation among winning players, and a player who is highly profitable (thus "Good") in one situation might be a horrible loser in another.

A true Master of the game would have to exhibit these qualities:

Mastery of Odds in all facets of the game (determining and using ranges effectively, complete awareness of all the mathematics in play)

Total Self Control- The Master plays their A game 99% of the time

Total Metagame Awareness- Proper BR management, game selection, using Image effectively, using past history to make informed decisions about opponents, and so on.

Are Phil Hellmuth and the other guys you mentioned true masters? Hard to tell. Definitely very good and accomplished players however you look at it. Do any "true Masters" exist? Probably? Maybe not? Hard to say!

[alfiwads]

finish 40th in wcop main event

[shortmat1444]

Jabber is 100 percent right i think. Good players try and know all the angles and work to there advantage. Knowing all the math helps and knowing ranges of people always helps. I think he explained it correctly on what you can consider a good poker player.

[Kasper-sn]

kinda hard to say whether a pokerplayer is good or bad. afterall the only messure we can use is long term profitability.

a true master of the game? if there is anyone it's Phil Ivey noone yet even scoops to his overall skill lvl at a pokergame. maybe some of the online guys Dwan Galfond Antonius reaches his level at NLH and maybe PLO but noone masters all the poker games as Ivey does.

[shortmat1444]

dwan is a joke and will be broke in 3 4 years. hes not good just lucky

[rryu87]

I guess you could call urself a good player if you win the 50k horse...

[Dr Fill Good]

dwan is a joke and will be broke in 3 4 years. hes not good just lucky

lololololololololol This might be the comment I most disagree with in the history of this site. Have you ever seen durrrr`s poker table ratings graph? Noone will play dwan in holdem online anymore because he is so dominate.
durr.jpg

If he ever becomes motivated to be a great tournament player then we might be talking about him being the best in the world in a few years. To think that he is just lucky is ridiculous. Watch his HU match against Antonius in the Aussie millions cash game, The amount of ridiculous laydowns Durr makes is insane! He gets incredibly unlucky but walks away losing the absolute minimum. (which happens to be 500k, but he easily could have lost 1 million plus with the way the cards hit)

But really... he is just lucky.

[LAPPIN]

Can anyone really doubt durrrr's talent... the kid is a poker prodigy and there are reels and reels of footage now to prove it. Ivey and Antonius are the only two who could exchange blows in any meaningful way with the kid.

[rryu87]

ziigmund >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> durrr
esp when he is drunk