What makes you a good poker player?

What makes one an intermediate poker player, versus an "intermediate" (one who thinks they are but in fact, is not) poker player?

• This quora inspired this question: I guess this is sort of a philosophical, open-ended question. But let me elaborate: * you could be winning or losing due to long term luck * you could know all the lingo and read all the books but still be a beginner * you may play mid or high stakes but it's possible you simply still a beginner, but have the bankroll for it * you maybe give advice that people listen to, but who knows, it really just give bad advice Perhaps, in the end, you are intermediate if you say (and believe) you are. And likewise, perhaps if you bother to ask such questions, that makes you a beginner.

• Answer:

  Good question. Poker is a terribly complex game, and as far as I know there's no accurate consensus. The best answer is that most people just assume positive winrate over a large sample to be an indicator. I think the winrate/hands method is flawed just because most people have no idea how truly long the "longrun" is. In 2005, we (the poker community) roughly assumed 50k hands would be enough. Then people started doubting, rounded up and said 100k. Throughout the past few years, I've witnessed this colloquial number increase. After that, there's also the question of what winrate is considered good? And that answer also differs by stakes, game type, etc. In my opinion, a practical longrun for today's games is around a million hands, though obviously many people would disagree. There's also a form of pecking order involved too. You can be a consistent winner at the lowest stakes, and be above-average relative to the world's poker population (and I suppose by that definition, intermediate at the game), but I don't know many low stakes players who would actually consider themselves that great (and if they do, they're probably succumbing to the fallacies OP listed in the question). So amongst serious poker players, one would never refer to themselves as a "beginner", "intermediate", et al. poker player, rather most introduce themselves by their stakes and let the reader interpret that themselves. P.S. Random, fun observance: The best players I know all exhibit some form of insecurity when it comes to their abilities, because the more they learn/know about poker, the more they realize they still don't have a clue in the grand scheme of things.