In one of the top masterpieces of Soviet satire a brilliant con artist, to win a bit of money, convinces a local small-town chess club that he is a traveling maestro and organizes a tournament. He first gathers the fees from the awe-struck yokel-enthusiasts and then plays “twelve identical matches” without understanding much of what he is actually doing, this being the second chess game of his lifetime, but placing the figures more or less correctly, with the terrified locals reading too much into his banal moves. Very soon, however, he good-naturedly utterly loses all twelve simultaneous games, to the amazement of the town. Buy then, however, he has gained the time he needed and escapes with the money. He is not a good player, but he is a winning one.
The Twelve Chairs is the title of the satiric novel. It has been translated into English to become both a book and film adaptation on DVD readily available at Amazon.com. A Mel Brooks comedy was the subject of the film and unless you are fanatical about Mel Brooks, stay clear of this one. Mark Zaharov, a brilliant director, not as well known as his compatriot Tarkovsky, adapted it into a Russian mini-series in 1976.
The point is that the definition of a good player, in poker or otherwise, depends on what that player’s purpose is. As far the fictional con artist was concerned, he was an effective player since his strategy precisely achieved his goals - quick money. It is a subtler point, however, that he was a good player also because he knew he couldn’t play solid chess for more than the first five or so moves and because he prepared an escape route.
There are numerous poker players out there who do not recognize their lack of ability. Poker players are blessed with an overactive ego, possibly due to the riskiness of the game giving the players a certain bravura. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the good player, they didn’t get the concept that poker is a complicated, demanding game which requires education and hands-on experience to succeed at all. For those who are clear on the concept, the game can be most profitable.
There are also the players who have simply learned a set of rules they strictly follow without applying much thought or trying to improve radically. They conceal their inferiority carefully enough to convey the impression of competence and mostly win in terms of overall profits. If that is their sole purpose for playing, than they may be called good players.
In poker as art, however, all of these people are not real players (to avoid calling them bad). They are on the set somewhere, but theirs are not exactly the leading roles. A good poker player is one who is eager and grateful for yet another insight which might still improve his already nuanced game of thought, skill, showmanship, and perception. He or she admits his weaknesses and strives to have as round a set of skills as possible.
For more interesting poker content please visit Big Poker Blog or The Poker Source