BBO Discussion Forums: Winners versus Losers - BBO Discussion Forums

Perhaps it is true that to become a great boxer you do not need to analyze what stuff the great boxers are made off. I think that to become a great bridge player you do. In fact, I think that it is useful for all of us who do not aspire to become the number one player in the world, but do want to improve our results.

good replies so far... let's look at some things suggested:

-Strong desire to win
-Ability to stay focused
-Mental toughness, ability to move on to the next board
-Good (competitive) attitude
-Ability to find the essence of a problem
-Ability to compete while under intense pressure
-Self belief

Things that helped in specifically Hamman's case:

-Having a real captain
-Not playing pro.

I think this is a great list! Everything in the first list can be found in ALL of the top players that consistently win. Obviously a high level of skill is needed as well, but these qualities are what seperate the true champions from the others.

I also was thinking (before this post) that the desire to win was the single most important factor. Hunger, as I call it, often seems to be the fine line between winning and losing. Whoever wants it deep down inside of themselves the most seems to come out on top when the skill level is pretty equal. I have played with and on teams with Hamman in sectionals. He was always aching to win, which really amazed me. I always thought that's what seperated people like him, Versace, Meckstroth etc. Thanks for your responses.

Maybe off the topic, but Jack Kent Cooke, the previous owner of the Washington Redskins, said of Joe Gibbs (Hall of Fame coach who won 3 Superbowls in 12 years), that he was the most focused person he had ever met. Joe Gibbs slept at the office most nights. His wife said that she would drag him off for a 2-week vacation during the off-season at some vacation spot like the Bahamas. But it would only be a few days until he would start complaining and the vacation would have to be cut short.

All the great ones are like that - totally focused on the goal of winning.

Perhaps it isn't desire to win so much as desire not to lose.

It was Jimmy Connors who said "I hate to lose more than I like to win" and that may be the key. That may be what allows you to play your best however badly things are going - knowing how bloody awful you will feel if you lose.

Eric

sceptic, on 2005-September-23, 12:04, said:

Where did this guy go anyways?

I though the same when I reread this, nothing to do with his coment, but Wayne was a great BIL poster, and he made me laugh many times with water cooler fun stuff.

EricK, on 2005-September-23, 19:53, said:

Another tennis star once said this, "Show me a good loser and I will show you a consistent loser." (Might have been Chris Evert-Lloyd who said this, can't remember who it was).

One thing I've noticed is that there are some whose goal seems primarily to avoid blame. In other words, they don't want to make any bid or play that potentially could cost them the match. This may seem the same as trying to win the match... but it really is not. Some of the habits I'm referring to include:

1. Avoiding any "risky" bids or plays, even though they might win, because they could also lead to an embarrassing result.
2. Leaving hard decisions to partner whenever possible (i.e. "do something intelligent doubles"), even if partner's odds of getting it right are not particularly good.
3. Failing to overrule partner even in situations where overruling is percentage (i.e. don't pull partner's penalty doubles ever).
4. Being quick to criticize partner in order to preemptively assign blame whenever any bad result is attained.

These sorts of behaviors seem common to lower-echelon professionals (i.e. players who compete in all the big events but never seem to do all that well in them). Arguments can be made that acting in this way helps a professional's job security even if it doesn't help his results. With that said, there are plenty of amateur players who do these things also... but you almost never see this kind of behavior from the Bob Hammans of the world.

Certainly there are some top players who are nasty to their opponents and some who are pleasant... but I can't think of any who are nasty to partner, and I think that is one key to success in this game.

Maybe Hamman has the ablity to make his partners play better/make fewer errors? Does this play a role between elite players?

No doubt attitude, desire etc are important, but I also think there is a noticeable difference in skill level between people like Hamman or Meckstroth and other top experts. And in a long match that skill difference is enough to decide the result most of the time.

Or to put it another way, if it was possible to separate pure bridge skill from all other factors and you could choose between the skill level of Bob Hamman and the 'other factors' of Brad Moss, or the skill level of Moss and the 'other factors' of Hamman, which would you pick?

I could be wrong but I would choose the former.

awm, on 2012-May-07, 20:29, said:

What world do you live in?

nigel_k, on 2012-May-07, 22:36, said:

FWIW I think that naming Brad Moss as the pro with a lower skill level was a poor choice for several reasons.

I think that there is one more factor that could be added:

The stability of ones personal life away from the table


There are many great sportsmen who seem to have lost their edge after personal trauma, tiger woods is one obvious example. I am certain that this effects people in a less dramatic manner. If you are having trouble with your teenage children then that worry is likely to distract you from the problem at hand. I imagine that those pro's with stable and supportive families have a significant advantage in the long run.

Are you sure that the bridge ability of Bob Hamman/Jeff Meckstroth isn't more than other top experts who seem to be as good but who haven't won as much?

I think there is a reason a lot of the top young bridge players have played poker (and played it very well). Poker is a game where there is immense randomness on each hand. But the important thing is to keep doing +EV things on every hand - regardless of the outcome on previous hands. Only working out what is positive EV and what is losing money is very difficult because of the noise (the random results of each hand of poker). I don't think bridge is that much different. It's very hard to evaluate what the best lead is on a hand (when on the actual deal the contract is cold ... this time ...) or which bids are winning or losing imps in the long term.

So, on all the boards that Hamman plays where his play is different from the other table perhaps he's making the right long term play - even if it loses on this layout. How can you really be sure?

What kind of edge do you think it's possible that Hamman and Meckstroth have over other top experts? maybe 0.1-0.2 imp per board? That's only about 6-12 imps per match in the Spingold or Vandy, and the variance is going to be higher than that. But because of that edge they are going to end up winning a lot more often than others over long careers.

And that sort of an edge is so small (a few overtricks, a game contract every 5 matches a partscore battle every 2 matches or so). It really would be hard to say "they aren't that much better, maybe it's something else". But maybe they just do play better than the other experts and that's why they win. It's just the edge is so small that it's very hard to notice it amongst all the noise.

Moral of the story: just play better than everyone else - EVERY TRICK of EVERY HAND.

dave_w, on 2012-May-08, 07:11, said:

No, I am not. I think I was wrong about that. I did start this thread 7 years ago or so so you can cut me some slack on that one

phil_20686, on 2012-May-08, 07:08, said:

I dunno, this makes sense but the opposite has been true in my life and a couple of my friends who have had a lot of success during some of the worst times in their life. Probably we are the exceptions, but I think you could argue that some people play their best when their back is against the wall in terms of their life.

I remember playing an incredile tournament when I was in total anger/rage with someone. But that is the exception, when my mother was dying I "played" a tournament and I as on zombie-mode all day playing totally auto. Last european championship a player of our team had his corporation under heavy financial crisis and he dumped like 2 IMPs/board. That kid of things matter.

I've had both.

Many bridge players are natural introverts, so when there are personal issues to deal with, its a great way to check out and immerse yourself in the game. The more the player focuses, the more the externalities that they deal with fade into the background. I am not implying this is a good thing, although sometimes the issues are temporary and just ignoring them and not stressing is the best thing.

When I'm having issues (financial / family / too busy with work), it usually means that I can't attend tournaments, which obviously has a negative affect on my results, since I'm not playing. On the occasional times where I've attended when i shouldn't have, my results usually suck anyway.

Fluffy, on 2012-May-08, 09:56, said:

I think that depends on the personality of the player involved, I have played some very good bridge while extremely unhappy.

I believe Rixi Markus (who tragedy tended to follow around) basically made her fortune at the rubber bridge table playing for high stakes against good players in the wake of Lord Lever deciding to marry somebody else.

I actually tend to play better if somebody has a go at me for my mistakes (which can be a lot of fun if I find somebody else like that to play with), but I have also had partners who go to pieces if I do. Personality can make a huge difference in these things.

I think of this in the way I think of top level people in any kind of professional competition. Bowling is a sport where you would probably say that the difference between the elite level guys is non-existent, yet there are players who are much more successful. Thats because there are intangibles that go beyond skill and ability. I have limited experience in high end bridge competition, but temperment and confidence IMO are the two most important factors to any kind of competition.

That isn't to say the temperment has to be the same. Itabashi is a world class crackpot at the bridge table, constantly berating his partners, and he does it well/it keeps him comfortable and on his game. Then you have guys like Mitch who are constantly pleasant and friendly throughout the session.

I think what makes justin so successsful especially lately is the level of confidence and having the skill to back it up.