Was hoping to get some clarification on what people mean when they say they have an edge on a player or a game? I would imagine its the edge is basically sitting around worse players that you can exploit, but if its all good players and you choose to play that game, is it more of a mathematical edge where you get your money in the +ev spots?

Your edge comes from worse players. You see what kind of mistakes they make and profit from them.

Theoretically, if everyone is of equal skill, nobody has the edge.

Like the old saying goes, "If you're the 9th best poker player in the world but you always play with the 8 that are better you'll go broke."

Why do you think these are different?

well I figure with an exploitative edge over worse players you end up making overall some plays you wouldnt normally make in certain spots, but when I write it out I realize that those situations would actually be +EV otherwise it wouldnt be worth making the play

Except the house!

The rake is the rake, regardless of individual players' edge, but I get the point.

And I get yours.

Break down the game, let's take poker:

Preflop
Post flop
Turn+river

Elements of those:

IP
OOP

Types of bets:

Value
Bluff
Semi bluff (Merged ranges)
Also keep in mind bet sizings as well

Holistic understanding:

GTO
Exploits
Categorization of players leading to exploits
Your range v theirs

As far as beating good players goes, it's about long term beating as winning 3-4bb in tough games is Godly, so all or most of these need to be in line.

So this is what I was thinking as far as long term winning goes. I hear a lot of people always talk about the cash games having a much bigger edge. If you were an crusher what would your bb/100 look like?

You watch videos of winners showing you how to play. Ton of free content out there these days, the type that would've cost an arm and a leg 8yrs ago.

It would look higher than other peoples winrates who play the same games.

Cash game players are generally far better deeper, but that changes as tournies get shorter, so MTT players are far more well rounded. I look at it like boxing v MMA, an MMA fighter would DESTROY boxers in an MMA fight, but boxers would school even the best strikers in MMA.

As far as bb/100, it depends on the level, as you get above 100nl 5+bb/100 is crushing and 10bb/100 is virtually unheard of.

For cashgames, I'm pretty impressed when someone wins at 5bb/100. But tournament players can win at double that, because there are so many whales. It's just that MTTs have the most insane amount of variance, so converting a double digit bb/100 winrate into actual dollars requires winning some crucial flips (e.g. on the final table bubble, or the FT itself). I've seen MTT players that win at 10bb/100, but barely make any actual money over a 6-month period, because although they have a clear edge on the field, they lose the 'important' pots more often than not. I think it was Max Silver that once said he had a single coinflip in an SHR that basically decided whether he had a winning or losing year. After all, winning a flip on a final table can be worth 30 buyins or more. It's obviously impossible to win or lose 30 buyins in a single cashgame hand.

One common edge is playing against players who play too loose. Actually, this is doubly advantaged, because people who tend to make a lot of mistakes before the flop also tend to make a lot of mistakes after the flop. If someone is consistently seeing the flop with weak hands, then they are going to end up on the worse side of things quite often, with you having top pair vs their middle pair, or be coolered by bad flush against good flush. Another common advantage is that some people play too passively. They end up giving up a lot of pots by failing to bet and these small pots they give up on can really add up at the end of the year.