What makes a good player? Part 2

     We hunt and search for that which will give us an edge in a poker game. We read anything we can get our hands on that might contain the 'secret', for which, we have been looking. You read book after book and you ask yourself, “Could it possibly be that I have found and already know the secret, but it just isn't obvious? Maybe there is a deeper meaning to some of the theory that I already know. Maybe I already am good and I should be putting more money into bigger games. It's the donkeys I am playing with that are keeping me down. I have learned enough and know enough.” The problem is, there is no definition for a good player. So we make our own judgments calling ourself 'good' when we are on a winning streak, and degrading ourselves, go searching again for the 'secret' when on a bad streak, believing we must not have it yet.
      In baseball you have batting averages, earned run averages, and errorless streaks. In basketball you have points per game and defensive stats. In football, catches, touchdowns, sacks and completions. In poker you have, umm...well professionals and non-professionals. We know who the professionals are and we know how much money they have made. They have chosen to make their living off of poker. So I guess that means they are always in the money and good. Jamie Gould stirs controversy with many. He is considered a professional and has won a WSOP, but many consider him, 'not good'. They criticized his etiquette at the table that he used to intimidate players. While I make no judgments on Jamie, I use him to prove a point. Even among professionals there is not a standard. Why, if there are really good players that know how to win money, do they end up losing so much? Mike Matusow has won millions playing live and has dropped over 2.5 million online. If a player is that 'good', how do they lose millions after winning millions? Daniel Negreanu was on a tear one year and the next people wondered if he would get to the winners circle again.  Gus Hanson has won millions and gone broke.

      Is it the ability to win a game that makes one 'good'? My brother-in-law came to visit some time ago. Great guy, but horrible at poker so he said he wanted to learn. “Ok, I'll teach ya, but after I give you the basics there must be money involved to learn properly, or the cards mean nothing to ya”, I said with a grin. He beat the pants off me. Yes, he took the money. Couldn't miss a hand as if the card were lined up for him. I love him...I just can't say he is 'good' simply because he won the game. (Maybe, it's that I'm such a good teacher? Oh come on...you gotta give me something here...I'm still bitter about it.) No, I have to say the ability to win once in a while does not make you 'good'. Many have criticized the play by Chris Moneymaker when he won the WSOP. They called it a string of luck. But did he play poorly? Can you play poorly and still win? If winning the WSOP is the pinnacle, should not Jamie Gould and Chris Moneymaker be called 'good' no matter how they did it? Did they use the secret?  I'm sure they did, at least in parts of the game.
      I said I would tell you the 'secret' in this one...I guess I lied, well not really lied, I 'bluffed'. Next one, I promise.

Click here:
http://www.glossforum.com/2009/04/06/what-makes-a-good-player-part-3/page1/