American Players suck..

[jullum 0]

Here is an article written by ladbrokes ("big bookmaker in Europe)own pokerpro, Roy "the boy" Brindley. Guess not all of u americans agree on it :-) , so I would just like to hear what u guys think of it.. What would the arguments from the american point of view be if u disagree?Here it is:"So, seeking an antidote to boredom without fulfilling my other addiction of punting on American horseracing, I flick through the scores of satellite stations, whose programmes contrast from Andy Pandy to Adult XXX, only to stumble across ESPN’s presentation of the 2003 WSOP. Here, in the opening hand of day threes play, a so-called big-name, Howard Leaderer, raises in an early position with A9 but he is quickly re-raised all-in for a sum that appears to be six times his initial raise. Now, considering this is not a $5 multi-re-buy event on the net, quite the opposite – three days in to the biggest tournament in the world – what do you do with your A9? Should Lederer’s opponent hold an AT, AJ, AQ or AK he is in very bad shape (an 11/4 shot). Similarly, holding any pair over 9’s and he is a 5/2 underdog. The hands he can be beating are A8, A7, A6 and so on, along with KQ, KJ and the like. While a pair of 8’s or lower mean he is marginal underdog. But, let’s be practical shall we, any kind of player – any kind of player that gets to day three of the World Series – is not going to come over the top of an early position raiser with a tiny pair, an Ace with a poor kicker, or King high. So, top-man Lederer duly makes a ludicrous call, expecting to see God only knows what, and then puts on his aggrieved face when an AQ suited is flipped over! Next up is Jonnie Chan, he raises with A3, again in an early position, and is soon re-raised. Now surely he is going to dump this handful of garbage, after all if his opponent is on an Ace Chan must be ‘out-kicked’ or, if his taking on a pair, he can only win if finding an Ace on the board, something which will result in his rival giving him no more money. In either scenario he cannot make a move on the flop unless on an outrageous bluff most probably without ‘outs.’ OK, I do declare Chan has won the World Series and more than you, I and most of ladbrokespoker.com players will ever do but how, considering plays like this, is the big mystery This leads me to one of the most frequently asked questions – how good are the American players? Well, residents in the land of the free and home of depraved will not hesitate in declaring our star spangled friends are simply the best poker players in the world. Such a blinkered viewpoint is not supported by the figures though, with World Series of Poker final tables consistently featuring a strong European flavour despite our representation barely registering on the entries/field size scale. So, if the hash of sheer numbers is not complimentary what about those players placed at the very highest echelon? Strangely, World Champions, WPT and World Series Bracelet winners arrived at Dublin’s WPC this summer in droves banging the American dream team drum but the result was nil seats at the final table. Repeat the dose for the Paris leg of the WPT, an Internet qualifier apart, and what began as a simple enquiry appears to have exposed the ridicule of a popular myth. Please don’t take this as outright condemnation, I’m just questioning and equating the form of even those which have won up to nine World Series Bracelets. After all, if you had played up to thirty events at each World Series since the early 80’s with field sizes often as small as twenty, would you not expect to match that score? "

[Breadfan 0]

There is no real argument in the article.Taking one hand that you saw on tv where a pro makes a so called incorrect play, is so pointless it's silly.nl tournament poker is very situational, obviously you can make a play that seems correct based on your read of your opponent and the overall situation, and if it's wrong of coarse it will look foolish on tv, what does that prove though?If i were to catch tiger woods on tv shanking a drive in a tournament, based on that one shot, would it be logical for me to say tiger woods is over rated infact he's horrible, because "hey did you see that one shot he made"... "i can even drive better then that!"If you watched Gary Kasaprov make some error playing some championship chess match, would it be logical to assume he is an overrated chess player because hey i saw him making a basic error that even i wouldn't make! It's ridiculousIf you want to make an argument that having 9 wsop bracelts doesn't prove much, or that some pros are over-rated well then make the argument.But taking a few tv poker hands out of context as your argument is just silly.But i would agree that the European players that have the means and desire to participate in the wsop will on average be better then then the average american playing in the wsop.But i would bet that the reverse of that is also true, that the average american player with the means and desire to play in a big european tournament is probably better then the average european player in that same tournament.

[KenP 0]

It is an interesting article but looks more like the author was a features writer than an actual poker player. The lack of information beyond what was in the hands takes the play completely out of context. I have to assume the lack of further info was intentional.On day 3 the blinds are starting to punish--no info on what they were or how many big bets were being represented.What was Howard's stack? Was he trying to steal the blinds with his rock image from a short stack? How committed was he to the pot? etc. etc. etc.I suppose I might be more willing to be sucked in by his thesis if he'd picked on a player other than Howard--who isn't as aggresive as most players at that level. I've got to think Howard's back was up against the wall and he needed to gamble.

[kook04 0]

Instead of writing 7 paragraphs explaing why this "expert" is wrong, I will sum it up in a sentence:Out of context, a single hand of poker is meaningless.

[tekn0wledg 0]

Obviously that article is written by someone who does not regularly make it to the final stages of a tournament. Thus the article is wreaking of jealousy instead of admiration for the people involved.While I will admit the plays they make with some hands is far from optimum, let's face it, predictability gets you nowhere in poker.... if Johnny Chan only raised with AK and Howard Lederer only raised with AJs then we'd never finish a tournament because everyone would fold when someone raised.... Tournament poker, particularly in the final stages of major tournaments, is not the same as ring games or any other form of poker for that matter.

[The Sheriff JBJ 0]

As a UK player I could jump on the brovado band waggon of the article or indeed pick it to shreads..... However, I will do niether.......simplt to pigeon hole it as the following....The article is nothing more than Tabliod Trash. It has a sensationalist headline and little substance or body in the main text.As we debate it now it probably made an even bigger impact on the audience it was intened for thus serving its purpose.

[rxq 0]

Wow my feelings were hurt.

[JL 0]

Sweet, I'll just move to the UK and automatically be better!

[Awful 0]

Plus, of course, in saying that the representation vs. finishing results, there's implicit selection bias. Average American Poker Player Joe may buy in directly and has many more satellite shots, and far greater exposure to and interest in playing the WSOP just for the sake of playing. Hell, a few years from now I plan on being dead money in some WSOP events just for the sake of doing it. European players aren't gonna fly out to vegas for the thrill of the WSOP unless they're extremely strong players with a real shot of going deep into the money. Even making the 1st stage of the money at the main event wouldn't cover airfare, lodging, and the opportunity cost of missing so many days of cash games back home, even if the euro player qualifies through a $100 super-satellite. Simply put, only the top europeans will come, and that explains the only disparity not easily dismissed through the fact that these hands were examined in a total vacuum without chip situations, table flow, etc. Look at the play of americans in european-based events and see if we can't make a similar claim about the rest of the world being worse at poker.

[NUTTYMATT 0]

I would like to apologize to jullum. I was half a sleep at the time.

[CoreyBrown 0]

He didn't write it.He posted an article he found and asked for opinions on it.

[KillerPanda 0]

He didn't write it.He posted an article he found and asked for opinions on it.

[Dane 0]

I know some people that say that the best time to play online is when the americans are online, its not because they think all americans suck at Poker, but there are so many americans playing Poker online and some of them really dont know how to play Poker, but they are more then willing to take chances, something I think is what sets americans and europeans apart in general its not a bad thing, but when done in Poker it can bite you in the butt.

[Bubba83 0]

In an event filled with players worldwide, the top 3 winners were Americans in both 2003 and 2004.I haven't really played with any european players besides at 3-5am on Royal Vegas. There I get to play with mostly swedes and fins, who take low stakes limit and no limit loose calls to a new level. They call soooo much and I make more in these games than I do in some middle stakes games other places.

[ClownfishX 0]

This is from Howard Lederer's 2003 WSOP Trip Report:"About three hands into the day, I open in cutoff with A9 suited. Darden in the SB moves in for 25,000 more. I am getting 37,000-25,000 to call. It is early, I have a big stack, he might be moving on me, and even if I call and lose, I will send an early message to the table that I can't be moved off a hand easily. I call. Paul turns over the AQ suited and it holds up. Okay, so now I have sent my message, but I have also created a small monster two to my left. I am not pleased."

[Breadfan 0]

This is from Howard Lederer's 2003 WSOP Trip Report:  "About three hands into the day, I open in cutoff with A9 suited. Darden in the SB moves in for 25,000 more. I am getting 37,000-25,000 to call.

The article claims howard was raised 6x his bet, which would be way off if you go by howards trip report. So if this is correct, and i would be willing to bet on howard's memory of the hand, then not only does this guy know little about poker context, but he isn't even capable of correctly following poker on TV!!... Geez, even my girlfriend can follow tv poker, and she's never played before... lolIt's times like these that make me laugh and just goes to show the irony when much of the rest of the world chimes in lock-step about how stupid and fat americans are on average... i guess 1 out of 2 isn't bad

[Beavis68 0]

That is funny, because a few friends and I love playing when the european players are on.

[KillerPanda 0]

I never thought World War III would be fought over a card game.

[LeeDanger 0]

There is no real argument in the article.Taking one hand that you saw on tv where a pro makes a so called incorrect play, is so pointless it's silly.nl tournament poker is very situational, obviously you can make a play that seems correct based on your read of your opponent and the overall situation, and if it's wrong of coarse it will look foolish on tv, what does that prove though?If i were to catch tiger woods on tv shanking a  drive in a tournament, based on that one shot, would it be logical for me to say tiger woods is over rated infact he's horrible, because "hey did you see that one shot he made"... "i can even drive better then that!"If you watched Gary Kasaprov make some error playing some championship chess match, would it be logical to assume he is an overrated chess player because hey i saw him making a basic error that even i wouldn't make!  It's ridiculousIf you want to make an argument that having 9 wsop bracelts doesn't prove much, or that some pros are over-rated well then make the argument.But taking a few tv poker hands out of context as your argument is just silly.But i would agree that the European players that have the means and desire to participate in the wsop will on average be better then then the average american playing in the wsop.But i would bet that the reverse of that is also true, that the average american player with the means and desire to play in a big european tournament is probably better then the average european player in that same tournament.

Good point. Some of the things mentioned in the article have come to my attention as well when I have been watching poker on TV. For the life of me I can't understand why some very good players make some of the calls that they have, it boggles my mind. The worst part is the afterthought "how the hell did they a living playing like that!!!"

[TheIceman05 0]

To be honest, the one game in which I see the biggest difference between American and European players isn't Texas, but OMAHA, Hold'Em.You ever played Omaha with a (good) European player? Holy crap, they play the game a heck of a lot differently than I do, and I consider myself at least on the road to "solid." Example: I've been taught that AAxx is a VERY strong hand heads up, but not one you really want to play a big pot with unless:a) all the money is in before the flop ORB) you make a safe-setNow, if I'm playing Pot-Limit Omaha and I've got AA in early position, I'm going to limp, hope to see a raise from late position, then try and get all the money in. Why not? You're a favorite against any hand but a better AA, right? I think the best hand to take against AAxx (4-suited) is something like 9-T-J-Q double suited, and then you're only a 4% dog. But Europeans really think American Omaha players put WAY too much emphasis on big pocket pairs in Omaha, and most all would rather play the latter hand than the former, whereas good American Omaha players are trying to get all the money in with Aces.Also, the idea that the Daniel Negreanu, Howard Lederer, Johnny Chan, Phil Hellmuth, Phil Ivey (etc, etc) are somehow OVERRATED is absolutely ludicrous. Who are the best European poker players? Marcel Luske? Come on. Everyone will readily admit that there are probably more BAD American poker players, but that's just because there are MORE American poker players, period. Nonesense.

[jullum 0]

First of all I have to thank NUTTYMATT for giving me credit for the article As previously said Im not the man to thank/kill.. I posted it because I thought it would be interesting to hear what u guys thought of it and because I figured it would be a topic that would get people pumped up :wink: Guess I was right.As u can see Im european (from scandinavia that is), and my own opinion is.. Well actually I cant say I have noticed any difference.I play mainly on the internet (not so much live but hope to in the future..) at relativly small limits..My main places to play are expekt (mainly european players) and pacifc (mainly americans(I think?)).Whitout sounding too much of and ass, I feel that I beat the competion on a regular basis both places.Havent had any other experinces either that makes me feel that on or the other are more superior.So I basically wanted to hear u guys out and make my name known on this site wich I think is a great site.All credit to Daniel(wich is also my name 8) ),and I will keep reading it since it looks like there are many activ and knowledgeble (is that a word?) users..And maybe I can give u some scandinavian views that u all can disagree on :-) .Pardon my bad english,hope u can live with it..

[LeeDanger 0]

I play with a lot of Romanians and they are crazy but pretty solid poker players. They have the nicknames of Romaniacs.

[Dane 0]

Also, the idea that the Daniel Negreanu, Howard Lederer, Johnny Chan, Phil Hellmuth, Phil Ivey (etc, etc) are somehow OVERRATED is absolutely ludicrous.  Who are the best European poker players?  Marcel Luske?  Come on.  Everyone will readily admit that there are probably more BAD American poker players, but that's just because there are MORE American poker players, period.  Nonesense.

Hey dont forget Gus Hansen hehe I guess my point of european players being a little less willing to take chances just got shot down

[LeeDanger 0]

Lol at Dane, most of the Europeans that I've seen on TV or that I've played against online seem to be more aggressive than Americans, but maybe that's just me.

[cmak3687 0]

Lederer actually explained that call on his website. He said something to the nature of, i knew i was beat but it was one of the first hands of the day, i was the big stack at the table, i wanted to send a message that i would call with marginal hands to the rest of the table to send a message of fear to the rest of the table. And also if he had a big pair, he might have been only a 2 to 1 underdog and couldve knocked someone out if he got lucky. Of course howard lederer knew the odds and the numbers, but the game isnt all about the numbers. i didnt fully read the johnny chan hand but i'm sure he has good reason and logic to why he played the way taht he did. Whoever wrote that article is an idiot, the majority of the best poker players in the world are american (ivey, negreanu, brunson, reese, lederer, chan, etc...) by writing that article, the author only shows, his lack of poker knowledge and is just 0ne of those wannabes who thinks they're so good because they can insult someone elses "bad play"