Are smart players too smart for their own good?

[HPG ADMIN]

Are the "thinking players" just a little too weak to make it to the #1 spot? Guys like Dan Harrington, Howard Lederer, Phil Gordon, and John Juanda get tons of respect - as they should - but always seem to never make it to a top place finish, while guys like Ariah and Hansen seem to have a better killer instinct. Are the smart guys just a little too timid compared to the aggressive ones?

[Unregistered]

But I think so called 'street smarts' are more important in poker than 'book smarts'. That may be the difference between aforementioned players.

[Unregistered]

Here's the way I see it. If I had to choose between Harrington or Hanson playing with my money, I'd choose Harrington. I think of myself as a "thinking player". And I play against people at the other end of the spectrum. I know I'm a better player than them, even though they my place higher than me in some tournies, because it's about making the "right" decision. If you watch the "Thinking players" you'll notice that they rarely get out played. They usually have the better hand when they're all-in. They're problem is with the popularity of the game, and the simplicity of playing with these guys(just front the cash and you're in), ther're just too many bad players for them to overcome. You put one reckless player at a table with 9 pros, he doesn't stand a chance. And I believe the opposite to be true. One pro vs. 9 reckless yahoos, and he won't win either. It's about playing the odds, and if you lose to the odds, you usually take a pretty big hit.
In the long run players like Harrington and Lederer will win more than the Gus Hansens. (Not that I don't respect Gus, or the way he plays) Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle Hansen, just referring to his style of play.
Oh, and Harrington being at the WSOP final table back to back years is pretty damn good. Not to mention the championship he already has vs. Hansen and Ariah's zero.

Vital1

[HPG ADMIN]

" I think of myself as a "thinking player". And I play against people at the other end of the spectrum. I know I'm a better player than them, even though they my place higher than me in some tournies, because it's about making the "right" decision. If you watch the "Thinking players" you'll notice that they rarely get out played. They usually have the better hand when they're all-in. "


This is how I play too. But the problem with this is that you are simply comparing the odds when 2 people are all-in. The big reason why the Hansens are so good is because they get so much folding equity out of their raises - that's risk free chips because people don't call them.

[Unregistered]

its not that they r better cause they take more risks, i think it is that they win more because when u use odds, they always r not guaranteed right.