the false logic of the wannabes

[sanemancrazywrld 0]

Some of you have a real fundamental misunderstanding of the variance in poker tournaments, and poker in general. A fairly typical argument is something like:Jack the poster writes:"Johnny X isn't good, he's lucky. When the won the Louisiana heads up championship, he got all in as a dog 42 times in a row and won all of them. Now that's lucky!".Billy Tulane responds:"When did I say he didn't get lucky? You have to get lucky to win a tournament. But I didn't see you sticking your neck out like that 42 times. That takes guts you know. And heart. He won the tournament, so he must be doing something right."Come on. If somebody wins the next 3 10k events, it doesn't mean they're playing better than everybody else. Really, seriously, it doesn't. Believe it, cause it's true. They are *most likely* a good player getting extremely lucky. This is *more likely* than a very mediocre player getting extremely^2 lucky, which is *more likely* than a bad player getting extremely^17 lucky. This whole "he made 5 final tables out of his last 7 10k events, so he's outplaying everyone in the world by a million miles" argument is ridiculous. There is very little difference between the top players in the world. There is very little difference between the top players in the world and the "second tier" players. NL holdem tournaments aren't about splitting the atom, the concepts are very straightforward. The absolute best players are only marginally better than other good players at reading people, getting away from hands, stealing pots, extracting maximum value, and properly reacting to the occasional somewhat tricky tournament situation. Every little bit helps, and any tiny bit better a player is helps his or her chances of having tournament success. These tiny differences are absolutely dwarfed by AK beating JJ once in a major tournmanet at an important time. Good lord, even when Kevin McBride came in second in the WSOP I had to read the absolute crap about what he was doing right.It's just a little tiresome reading how player X must be the best, because he's got the best record over the last 4 months, or whatever. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but we sure as **** can't tell just because he's got the best record over the last 4 months.

[DeNuts1 0]

This has been said and argued in 9 other threads

[711Buddha 0]

Fortunately, there is a way to keep score in poker. Its money. That is all.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

Oh.

[bobbytheo3 0]

Some of you have a real fundamental misunderstanding of the variance in poker tournaments, and poker in general.   A fairly typical argument is something like:Jack the poster writes:"Johnny X isn't good, he's lucky.  When the won the Louisiana heads up championship, he got all in as a dog 42 times in a row and won all of them.  Now that's lucky!".Billy Tulane responds:"When did I say he didn't get lucky?  You have to get lucky to win a tournament.   But I didn't see you sticking your neck out like that 42 times.  That takes guts you know.  And heart.   He won the tournament, so he must be doing something right."Come on.  If somebody wins the next 3 10k events, it doesn't mean they're playing better than everybody else.  Really, seriously, it doesn't.  Believe it, cause it's true.  They are *most likely* a good player getting extremely lucky.   This is *more likely* than a very mediocre player getting extremely^2 lucky, which is *more likely* than a bad player getting extremely^17 lucky.      This whole "he made 5 final tables out of his last 7  10k events, so he's outplaying everyone in the world by a million miles" argument is ridiculous.  There is very little difference between the top players in the world.  There is very little difference between the top players in the world and the "second tier" players.   NL holdem tournaments aren't about splitting the atom, the concepts are very straightforward.  The absolute best players are only marginally better than other good players at reading people, getting away from hands,  stealing pots, extracting maximum value, and properly reacting to the occasional somewhat tricky tournament situation.   Every little bit helps, and any tiny bit better a player is helps his or her chances of having tournament success.  These tiny differences are absolutely dwarfed by AK beating JJ once in a major tournmanet at an important time.  Good lord, even when Kevin McBride came in second in the WSOP I had to read the absolute crap about what he was doing right.It's just a little tiresome reading how player X must be the best, because he's got the best record over the last 4 months, or whatever.  Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but we sure as censored can't tell just because he's got the best record over the last 4 months.

spoken like a bad player who would like to think hes in the middle of a downswing....sike, JK, your right. most people here understand what you said. But thats like not giving credit to Carolina for winning the NCAA championship this year cuz theyre not actually much better than Illinois and if they played 1,000,000 times they would split. there are still winners and losers and the winners have to get their credit.

[sanemancrazywrld 0]

Fortunately, there is a way to keep score in poker.  Its money.  That is all.

From what I understand, there is also a way to keep score in Yahtzee.

[Guest]

Some of you have a real fundamental misunderstanding of the variance in poker tournaments, and poker in general.   A fairly typical argument is something like:Jack the poster writes:"Johnny X isn't good, he's lucky.  When the won the Louisiana heads up championship, he got all in as a dog 42 times in a row and won all of them.  Now that's lucky!".Billy Tulane responds:"When did I say he didn't get lucky?  You have to get lucky to win a tournament.   But I didn't see you sticking your neck out like that 42 times.  That takes guts you know.  And heart.   He won the tournament, so he must be doing something right."Come on.  If somebody wins the next 3 10k events, it doesn't mean they're playing better than everybody else.  Really, seriously, it doesn't.  Believe it, cause it's true.  They are *most likely* a good player getting extremely lucky.   This is *more likely* than a very mediocre player getting extremely^2 lucky, which is *more likely* than a bad player getting extremely^17 lucky.      This whole "he made 5 final tables out of his last 7  10k events, so he's outplaying everyone in the world by a million miles" argument is ridiculous.  There is very little difference between the top players in the world.  There is very little difference between the top players in the world and the "second tier" players.   NL holdem tournaments aren't about splitting the atom, the concepts are very straightforward.  The absolute best players are only marginally better than other good players at reading people, getting away from hands,  stealing pots, extracting maximum value, and properly reacting to the occasional somewhat tricky tournament situation.   Every little bit helps, and any tiny bit better a player is helps his or her chances of having tournament success.  These tiny differences are absolutely dwarfed by AK beating JJ once in a major tournmanet at an important time.  Good lord, even when Kevin McBride came in second in the WSOP I had to read the absolute crap about what he was doing right.It's just a little tiresome reading how player X must be the best, because he's got the best record over the last 4 months, or whatever.  Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but we sure as censored can't tell just because he's got the best record over the last 4 months.

Well at least thats settled. Meh. Now I can sleep at night.....

[semaj550 0]

I always thought that the goal in poker was to win money. If that is true then the best players win the most money. The problem is how do you obectively compare financial results between players who play in different games, at different stakes, in different places against different players?If the only players we considered in determining the "best" player all played in a 4k/8k game, always played at the exact same time and only against each other it would be pretty easy to determine who the best player in this vacuum is. However, some guys play more tournaments than others, they change limits. Who is to say that the "best" player doesn't play the .5/1 on Party? I know it's exteremly unlikely but without an objective way to compare everyone you could never be absolutely sure. And if we're talking best in terms of talent we can't compare only dollars won because it would be pretty hard for even the best player to ever live to win as much playing 10/20 as Daniel does playing 4k/8k.I think there are a select group of players who are undeinably better than the vast majority of poker players. I think trying to determine who among them is the best is like splitting a hair that has all ready been split several times.I also think it's very important to point out that, based on the players that are currently out there, it is very unlikely that there is a "best" all around player or even a best Hold'em player. Guys like Gus Hansen, Dan Harrington, Daniel Negreanu and many others (whom I apologize to for not including in my list) are big time tournament winners however, there are guys with better cash game results.So who is the best? I'd say it's just too hard to tell and there are too many ways to judge.