Handicapping

Recently, there's been quite a bit of discussion as to what constitutes a "good" player. Is a good player someone who challenges the very best, and knows how to beat them? Or, is a good player someone who tries to find the game that gives him the biggest possible edge: that is, someone who actively seeks to play in games in which the opposition is relatively weak?

Heat on Me

Over the years, I have gotten a lot of heat because I am a prime example of the players from the latter category: those who actively seek to play in soft games. On more than one occasion, I have heard people make statements like, "Hmm, see how one can quickly develop into a poker force simply by beating up a bunch of 101 regulars." A few well-known players/writers, and also some people who have not achieved anything yet, claimed that since I was never at the big events, and they never saw me play in games with expert opposition, I could not be that much of a player. So, why on earth would I be worth listening to? Actually, most of these critics would use much kinder words than this – but basically, this is what they meant.

Well, I have to admit, these critics of mine do have a point. In most sports, players get recognized as being the best because they are able to beat the best. Poker, on the other hand – especially cash-game poker – is an endeavor in which professionals can select their own hours and choose any games they wish. I for one have always paid a lot of attention to game, table, and seat selection in order to give myself the best possible edge, and there's no question that it has paid off well for me. It doesn't automatically make me a top player, though. It does mean that I've been able to make top money – probably much more than most of the people, and even some of the experts, who criticize me.

Some More Discussion

Now, even though I don't respond to accusations and/or criticism very often, this handicapping issue seemed interesting enough for me to do just that. Even with my good game selection, and all the handicapping that I do, I am still faced with some good or even very good players on a regular basis. In the relatively big games that I play, it simply does not happen very often that a live one will sit down to simply hand over his money to the other players. (It does happen, but, unfortunately, not very often.) If anyone thinks that in pot-limit games with buy-ins of more than $500, one can expect to be up against slouches only, he is horribly mistaken, and obviously has no clue about the average skill level required for pot-limit or high-stakes poker. This was basically my response on one of the poker forums. I wrote: "Guys, even with all of my table and game selection, I am still up against some of the best (European) players. Even though I make most of my money from the people who are not that tough, I still have to be able to hold my own against some very good players: There are simply no high-stakes games available with bad and mediocre players only."

Now, that's when things got very strange. A well-known limit player claimed that he had not been that impressed at all with European pot-limit players. He came to this conclusion because when these people sat down in his (limit) game, they almost always played poorly. This would be the same as discrediting this limit player for not being able to play big-bet poker well. Just because someone plays certain structures or certain games rather poorly doesn't mean he can't excel in other games or structures. Indirectly, this person was also implicating me, because he had called me a "pot-limit player" on numerous occasions. This was despite the fact that I have built my entire bankroll by playing limit poker.

Also, another person jumped in on the discussion, saying that if I was indeed playing regularly in the same games as some of the best European players, my game and table selection must not be so good after all. As I said, for the stakes that I like to play, there are simply no soft games available: My options are basically limited to semitough, tough, and very tough games only. What's more, if you took this logic further, one would never qualify as a good player:

• If you try to avoid the toughest games, you cannot be a top player, because top players should be able to beat anyone, at any time, and under any circumstances.

• If you do take it up against the very best, you do a poor job of game selection. As we all know, part of what makes a pro a pro is that he always tries to maximize his edge. Someone who chooses to play in the toughest games against the very best players obviously lacks in this area, and thus cannot be considered a top pro.

Some Final Words

The subject of handicapping is a highly interesting one, and I still am somewhat ambivalent as to what constitutes a "good" player. Basically, my view is this: I don't think one can claim to be an expert player if he makes his money from beating relatively weak opposition only – even if by doing so he is able to make expert amounts of money. But to try to discredit someone just because he's smart and sensible when it comes to picking good games seems to be taking things a bit too far. I would say: Try to learn from the experts, because they may be able to teach you things that merely good player/writers could not teach you. But you should also listen to the people who may be less than expert but still make very good money. If I see someone who has achieved tremendous success without being an actual expert, due in large part to avoiding the people who might pose a threat to him, this is a person I want to listen to.