Systine

Hi Dave,

My question maybe a difficult one to answer: How can I effectively measure my skill level? Not only is the answer complex but expressing the question itself I find to be a challenge.

It sounds easy; basically do I win? But unfortunately I have no guage on my opponents’ long-term ability, sure I do establish a read on them and can usually determine their experience and play style but are they any good… and what is good. I have been actively playing for about a year now, which equates to roughly 20 hours per week. I play primarily online where I toggle between the ring games and the sit and go tournaments, plus the odd multi-table. Online I generally play the $30 or $50 tournaments and much lower limits in the ring games. I have been to Port Perry a couple of times both for ring games, 5/10, and a multi-table tournament. Financially I am down, but only slightly. From my perspective this is good entertainment value and does not disappoint me at all, I can see my game play steadily improving but I don’t truly understand where a “good player’s” level of skill is. I realize I have only been playing a relatively short time and this game has as much to do with experience as understanding the strategies, I don’t expect instant results and am willing to put in the time to develop. In mentioning strategies, I have read several poker books and am able to comprehend the strategies outlined, something I would not have been able to do a year ago (when I honestly though I was a great at poker, but have since been humbled). Now, after playing tournaments or ring-games, I can consistently walk away learning something and/or can identify my faults/mistakes.

My trouble is the talent pool is spread so thin online and think that Port Perry may be too small time to provided and actuate guage, I do not want to compare myself against people who are there to gamble not to engage in a thinking game. My definition of the gamblers are the ones that go all-in or call ridiculous bets with garbage only to out draw on the river, basically the long-term losers.

I would love to sit a table with a mix of pros and amateurs and just see how I would do, unfortunately this may not be vary viable.

If you have any insight on a measurement of poker abilities I would love it hear it.

Thanks,

Dave Scharf

This is an EXCELLENT question. I need to give this some thought (and I am currently holidaying on the west coast so... it might be a day or two).

__________________
Fear the beaver, baby. Fear the beaver.

Dave Scharf

(1) Keep track of your wins and losses. You have mentioned this already. It is, of course, THE essential issue. You must keep track for each level and game you play at. You may find that you beat 3-6, but you cannot beat 10-20.

(2) Find a mentor and talk about poker. I often hear players talk about the bad play of others... often they are DEAD wrong. So, to KNOW if you are skilled or not you must, obviosly, understand all the tools that the skilled player uses. Once you KNOW (in theory) what is a good play and a bad play then you will be able to analyse your play and your opponents (keeping track will keep you informed as to whether or not you are IN FACT making enough of the plays that you KNOW you OUGHT to make).

It's a moving target. In the games you are playing in the "good players'" skills are patience and discipline. The good players in your games are rocks. As you move up in level you will find, more and more, that the rocks become the weak players. The skill becomes creativity and psychology.

I know this feeling well. Sometimes you feel like you should be signing autographs. Other times you feel like you should be playing $0.25-0.50 against your grandmother's knitting club (and losing).

Human beings almost ALWAYS overrate their skill. Whether it's poker, or golf, or driving a car, or ANYTHING. It is human nautre -- we overrate ourselves and underate others. Be aware of this. Thirst for knowledge (you are). Think about poker a lot (you are). Over time you will come, more and more, to see where you stand in the pecking orcer. Identify players who are better than you and ask yourself "what are they doing that I do not do?"

When I get to the final table of this year's World Series of Poker and I am asked "How good are you?" I will answer: "Not as good as most of the other players on this final table, but poker has an element of luck and I am good ENOUGH to have a chance." I think that is an honest answer.

__________________
Fear the beaver, baby. Fear the beaver.

Systine

Thanks Dave, excellent advise and it is nice to know that the steps I am taking are on the right track.

How about get beat at 3-6 and 20-40 but win at 10-20. As for being beat in the higher limits I can see my issue may be highlighted in one of your later points about "good players":

Not impling I am a rock. However, what concerns me is the lower limit. I have been believing that the limit is just to low and the players do not have a serious connection with that little amount of money. 6 bucks, heck I will call that with nothing and hope for a miracle draw (they say). I have to keep telling myself they don't win in the long run but when everyone else at the table seems to be doing that someone is it going to hit. I will leave the table and return later only to find the same thing. Surely there must be more to it then everyone just throughing money in the pot.

This would be great, unfortunately it is difficult since a proven mentor may be tough to come by. And if you do fine someone getting them to discuss strategy and technique can be just as hard (not wanting to lose any edge).

I would like to say one more thing. I have recently downloaded the PokerTracker software and replayed many of my hands, watching as a third person I was surprised at many of my (bad) moves and beats where I thought the guy got lucky but after watching it I realized I was completely outplayed from the get go. I always try to replay the hand in my head before every move... I guess that needs more development.

Once again thanks for the advice.

Dave Scharf

There is. Be the one throwing money into the pot with the best hand.

I tell a lot of people, practice online at CanadianPokerPlayer.com. The download is for free games. Often I hear "You can't beat those games because nobody cares and they all call." Then, I always answer by asking: "You think that you cannot beat a game where you opponents are not trying to beat you and yet you will be able to beat a game in which your opponents are ACTIVELY trying to take your money?"

You appear to be doing ALL of the right things. Players who are capable of HONEST self-analysis are destined to get better.

Let me give you a recent local example. Weekly no-limit hold'em tournament. Folded to me on the button and I have J-2o. I figure that the two small-stacked blinds are playing too tight. I make a raise. The small blind moves all in. Big blind folds. I call (very small re-raise). The river card is a jack and I beat his 7-7. The player in question has been giving me the gears about this play for a few weeks. In fact, the player in question has been talking to OTHER players about how badly I played the hand. Hmmm... time for some honest self-analysis.

I made the J-2 raise because of how tight I perceived him to be. He needs to examine how frequently he defends. Either I am wrong about how tight he is or he needs to loosen up. He and I will both hold our own opinions about his calling range in this spot. If I have to guess, I figure he players A-K to A-J, K-Q, and any pair. If I am right then a raise with ANY two cards is right.

Second, he should NOT have re-raised pre-flop. He should have flat called and then fired on the flop NO MATTER WHAT CAME. By playing the hand this way he gives himself some SMALL amount of "fold equity." I might, in fact, have folded and he would have won the hand. By re-raising pre-flop he GUARANTEED that I would call and that he only had one way to win the hand -- have his 7-7 finish as the best.

The point is that my initial raise with J-2o is open to debate. It may or may not be the right play depending upon the range of hands that he will defend with. His re-raise is WRONG. Honest self-analysis might show him that I am not neccesarily an idiot (I might be, but it's not that certain).

__________________
Fear the beaver, baby. Fear the beaver.

professor

That's a nice piece of technique! Good reasons for it too. I'll have to keep that in mind when the circumstance arrives.... thanks.

__________________
When in doubt, raise!

Systine

Once again thanks, I really appreciate your thoughts!