Quote:
Originally Posted by LyinKing
in playing the highest stakes, aside from the rare and egregrious fish, what are some subtle distinctions between winning/marginal/losing players?
Adapting to opponents is a big one. Some players just 'play their hand' too much, since that's what they did when they 10 tabled 3/6nl. The better players change every part of their game based on the table and the players they're up against.
I also think that a lot of medium-good but not great players probably undervalue betsize/timing tells. Especially against weaker opposition.
Quote:
Also, do you believe that some inherently winning players (that is, with the skills to win) end up losing longterm, and vice versa? Or is the proof entirely in the pudding?
I'm not sure which of two interpretations of this questions you're asking, so I'll try to answer both.
Some players are smart enough and work hard enough to win, but lose because of 'soft skill' leaks. Things like game selection, BR management and tilt control. It definitely happens.
On the other hand, there are a lot of medium strength players who are successful because they don't have those leaks. It probably is wrong to call them medium strength players because they have higher EV than some of the 'better' players.
The other way I take your question is as a question about the players you see in the biggest games or in highstakes db as the biggest winners/losers.
In the long run, the best players will always win, but I think most people have no idea at all how long the long run is.
I wouldn't trust 3 full years of data on highstakes dbs to tell me who the best and worst players are.