Thanks for both of these responses on how to identify whether a player is better than you (I realize this has the potential to get off-topic). These seem like related answers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SplawnDarts
I can also say there are players I've run into that clearly were both sound players and had supernatural feel for certain games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gzesh
It is very possible. I watch hands between other folks at the table and generally can identify someone involved who plays their hand much better than would I in the same circumstances .... or at least close enough to give me some confidence I understand how good they are in that hand.
So following other hands and tracking when a player has made a correct read on a hand in a circumstance where you would have made an incorrect read. This might indicate that a player has a better "feel" than you do. I think it might be especially identifiable where that feel seems based on a physical tell. In this case, you can identify exactly the information you are trying to gather, but don't have actual ability to gather it, while recognizing that other might have a superior ability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gzesh
I've been playing live for 40+ years because I consider it recreation. What is more important than identifying who is confirmed better than you is to identify players who make blatant, exploitable errors they may repeat against you in future hands.
(I play only low stakes NL cash live, it doesn't take watching for long to figure out who is messing up at the table. Give it up to an hour, if you can't or don't see someone mess-up, pick up.... that game is too solid, unless you are looking for lessons that day.
Knowing your rank on the player food chain is key to survival and enjoyment from poker long term. )
I agree with all this, but I also think it is much easier to figure out when a player is much worse than you, or approximately equal to you, than if they are much better that you, which is why I was asking specifically about the last thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SplawnDarts
Sure - one possibility is they explain their reasoning and you recognize it as correct even though you wouldn't have thought of it that way yourself.
This seems like it should be a possibility, but I'm having a tough time seeing how it would work in practice. Generally speaking, when you hear someone describe their thinking in a hand, you are going to have one of three reactions:
1.) They think about the hand is basically the same way you do.
In this case, you would tend toward labeling that player as approximately equal to you in skill.
2.) They think about the hand in a way that reveal what you believe is a clear mistake in their reasoning.
In this case, you would tend toward labeling that player as worse than you.
3.) They think about the hand differently than you, but not in a way that you can identify as a clear mistake.
This is the case where I think you are saying you should tend toward labeling the player as better than you. But in practice, I think we just evaluate their difference in reasoning based on own pre-existing impression of the player's skill, rather than adjusting our impression of their skill based on their difference in reasoning.
As an example, I know the broad situations in which it might be important to incorporate the concept of blockers into our decision about when to initiate a bluff. But I have have trouble in real time assessing the actual situations in which a blocker might turn a fold into a call or bluff in terms of the combinatoric of a specific hand (except in a few obvious cases). I also know that expert players have a much better handle on this than I do, but also that much weaker players will sometimes mis-use this concept in order to justify reckless play.
There are several times in which I have heard Doug Polk use a blocker in his hand to justify a bluff or call in a situation where I would have folded. Because I know that Doug Polk is a much better player than I am, I assume that this is evidence that Polk played the hand better than I would have, and this is something I should learn from.
However, I have also heard several times a random player describing that they made a bluff because they have blockers in a case where I would fold. In this case, this probably wouldn't cause me to believe that player was better than me. It would more likely make me think the player was misapplying the concept, and over-valuing blockers.
I also see this in Brad and Andrew's vlogs make plays that I wouldn't. Most typically, this involves Brad making what I see as a hopeless bluff or Andrew checking down a hand I think he should value bet. If I saw a random player do this, I would think they were making a mistake. But because I already know that Brad and Andrew are successful pros (and presumably better than me as a recreational player), I am much more likely to reassess my own thinking in reaction to these hands than believe they made a mistake.
Thinking about this a little more, there is one situation that I've observed that more than any other causes me to assess someone as better than me: When a player
easily and without hesitation makes a huge bet or call in a situation than I recognize as correct, but know that in practice I would agonize over before making. (Of course, the player must already be someone who seems generally solid to distinguish them from a player who is just really into gamboooling.)
