What is a winning player?

[Dingdell]

I was just wondering what is a 'winning player' in peoples minds?

Is there a difference depending on whether you are recreational or professional?

Does winning mean ability to pay bills and does that mean that a winning player is different for different members of the forum - those living at home and not having as many bills to pay as those paying a mortgage?

Or do you base it entirely on percentage of winnings vs buy ins?

[AlexMartin]

someone that beats the game over a significant sample size. Like 1k live tournaments, 100k cash hands, 50k sngs.
And "winning" is a variable. £1 and hour or £1k an hour, same thing.

[M3boy]

if you extract more money from playing poker than it costs you (over a large sample size) - that would be my definition of a winning player.

But as Alex has said, the term "winning" is relative

[KingPoker]

someone that beats the game over a significant sample size. Like 1k live tournaments, 100k cash hands, 50k sngs.
And "winning" is a variable. £1 and hour or £1k an hour, same thing.

 

[M3boy]

Going by my definition, you run into this question.

Take Jamie Gold for example - if he never makes a profit from now on, but does not use up all of the money he won in WSOP - this would still make him a winning player by my definition.

But would he be a winning player really?

Great question Tracey btw

[Jon MW]

...Like 1k live tournaments...

Why live? The money is all you're measuring so why would 1000 live tournaments be different 1000 online ones?

I personally only go by whether my winnings are more than my entry fees, but obviously that's strongly influenced be just being a recreational player.

[Dingdell]

Going by my definition, you run into this question.

Take Jamie Gold for example - if he never makes a profit from now on, but does not use up all of the money he won in WSOP - this would still make him a winning player by my definition.

But would he be a winning player really?

Great question Tracey btw

That's exactly my take on it. I think winning must include consistency, we get lucky once in a while but does that make us a 'winner' in the true sense of the word?

[Claw75]

tricky one - and I honestly wouldn't know how to answer if someone asked me if I was a winning player.  I hardly play online at all nowadays, and play live, recreationally, averaging only about one tournament a week.  I don't keep any records, but I know that I have won a hell of a lot more than I have laid out.  As this is only over around 30 games, I guess I can't say one way or the other.  What I usually say if people ask me is 'I've bought some nice stuff with my poker winnings'

[RED-DOG]

Going by my definition, you run into this question.

Take Jamie Gold for example - if he never makes a profit from now on, but does not use up all of the money he won in WSOP - this would still make him a winning player by my definition.

But would he be a winning player really?

Great question Tracey btw

That's a very pertinent point, and one I wouldn't have thought of, but no, in my book he would not be a winning player.

[Longy]

someone that beats the game over a significant sample size. Like 1k live tournaments, 100k cash hands, 50k sngs.
And "winning" is a variable. £1 and hour or £1k an hour, same thing.

Nail on head imo.

I would argue with the sample size but im being pedantic try about 5k mtts (very few people ever reach the long term) live or online, 2.5k sngs and 100k cash hands seems about right.

[Grier78]

Take Jamie Gold for example - if he never makes a profit from now on, but does not use up all of the money he won in WSOP - this would still make him a winning player by my definition.

Across his lifetime probably, but if you ask has he been a winning player this year then you might get a different answer.

I am a winning player, but as I only play for fun I have no other expenditure apart from Buy-ins and Rake, and I only play at small limits because it is more important to me to remain a winning player than play in ever increasing size games.

I think it is most reasonable to look at your results form the last year to see if you are (currently) a winning player.

[Karabiner]

I would say that "a winning player" is simply someone who is ahead of the game.

It makes no difference to me how long the person has been playing.

[The_duke]

I, personally, would not limit "winning" to money. (If I did I deffo ain't a winner - lol).

Where I do win is with the people I have met along the way- Blonde Bash -- APAT live games etc etc. 

I am a recreational player and I play for fun (If I win a few bob it's a bonus).

The people I have met, without exception, will remain in my mind forever.

The live game rush - the thumping heart -- the luck - the bad beat - the wp gg nh -- I love it .....

Yep therefore I am a winning player.....

[MANTIS01]

I think the answer to this question is very personal. Firstly, I would say the length of time you've been playing the game is an important factor. If you are in your first year playing poker then you are still learning the game as a complete novice. If at the end of the year you have learnt the game extensively and the experience has furnished you with lots of new skills, but you are $100 down, then I would still consider you a winning player. In real money terms you are down, but would you consider that education to be worth more to you than $100? If you do how can you consider that year to be a loosing one? A player who is -$100 after experiencing his first 1k games is not a loosing one imo. That experience is an investment, and it has worth.

If you have been playing live for 20 years and find yourself £200 down, but have enjoyed yourself immensely, made lots of new friends and you have enriched your life in some way then I wouldn't say you are a loosing player. Again, because poker has given you something of value.

If you decide to measure the success of poker players in longterm money winnings alone then you must consider the likes of Gold to be a poker winner. You can't fairly decide to measure him over a shorter period, because we all know poker is about the longterm. So if it's just money you're considering then Gold has to be a winning player. Then again, if someone shot smug Jamie in the face until he was dead, I would suggest poker has been -1 for him.

[MANTIS01]

In other words, what duke said.