Spin off from something TP and Brian talked about in another thread

[Kurn]

<shrug> I record each session I play. Each has a + or - number at the end. Those +'s and -s get summed up as the year goes on.

The bottom line is the bottom line. Evaluating what that means and how you got there is important, but if the bottom line is a +, you're a winning player.

A winning cash game player usually has more + sessions than - sessions. (a benchmark [for limit] is 2:1 wins vs. losses)

A winning tournament player has more - sessions than + sessions (over 40% ITM is good in the SNG world, and good MTT player's losing sessions probably outnumber winning sessions by 4:1, the wins are just bigger)

[Penguinfan]

I am honestly suprised, in a good way, about the number of different approaches. In Kurn's reply he says "The bottom line is the bottom line". I agree that in the end game of it all we are playing to make money, but even in one of the minus sessions you could have played great poker and got unlucky, right?

Long run (however long that is) the luck and odds should play themselves out, which is why we want a player to call our set of Aces when the have a flush draw after the turn.

It just seems to me that absloute dollars won and lost, while the divideing line, isn't a true interpretation on how good a player you may be.

[Tony Cheval]

Good...bad...TP's the man with the money.

[melioris]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tony Cheval again."

Damnit Tony, why do you have to go and quote "The Army of Darkness" on me. You know how it gets me all hot and bothered.

[2Tone]

In Jesse May’s great novel (a must read!), the narrator goes through an interesting discussion of the challenges of trying to figure out who the ‘best’ player is. He provides a few different examples:
A championship stud player who has to switch games because all the money is in hold ‘em these days …

A gifted, consistent winner at the poker tables who can’t stay out of the pit, and hence is often broke, having blown his winnings at craps …

A solid but unspectacular grinder with a small but steady monthly profit.

Any of who you could make a case for, with no right answer.

[Penguinfan]

Not that it matters, but this is the type of player I would like to be.

[Tony Cheval]

That is indeed what I am aiming for, and managed for the last few weeks anyway. We'll see when The Great Variance God wakes up and decides to kick my ass.

[melioris]

to do this I think you have to follow all the "rules" about playing within your bankroll and playing only when you are emotionally able to handle the suckiness of the grind. What i mean by this is actually being satisfied when you get the money in when you are favorite, no matter that ass-clown hits his two-outer and destacks you. It can hurt, but you have to be satified with how it went down. Thus the suckiness of the grind.

[Tony Cheval]

Heh, I was just looking for a better response than the old 'better lucky than good' saw.

I should say as for myself, the money I've withdrawn from poker has certainly been significant FOR ME, I'm just not anywhere near 5/10 level or anything.

[Talking Poker]

Of course not... and I don't think anyone suggested it was.

Absolute Dollars won and lost determine if you are a winning or losing player (duh), but that definitely doesn't directly relate to "skill."

Take Jamie Gold: He won $12 million last week. Is he a good player? I'm sure he is. He's made more money than a number of top pros COMBINED. Does that make him a better player than al lof them though? Of course not.