Insideman, I get your point but I disagree with it (our posts probably make it seems like we're further apart then we are though, it's not that I don't get where you're coming from)
You're making it out like these new solvers are in a different category compared to previous ways of studying poker, when I just consider them to be a thousand books.
How did Ivey get good? Presumably by finding the most advanced, most efficient way of studying the game and then working very hard at that. I remember reading something about some dude in the 80s running odds for different scenarios on primitive computers. Hell, before Super System was written you'd be trying to get coaching from Doyle. But how could you even tell Doyle was the best unless you are already a good poker player (relative to that time)? How is that situation qualitatively different from having to be a good poker player to identify in 2014 you had to focus on solvers? It's just that when Ivey came up that the best way to get better at poker was to think a lot, be able to talk about hands with other good players (an advantage unavailable to all but the very best ;-)) and play a lot.
Now it's solvers, but as someone that wasn't attracted to poker because of the backroom cigar mano a mano vibe but as an intellectual challenge, I see little difference between the way in which Ivey came up and the way you come up in 2016. Figuring out the best way to use books or solvers, figuring out the most productive way of thinking about hands, playing. I see a lot less difference there than you. I also think you overestimate how much a solver is worth on the hands of someone who doesn't have a great poker mind to begin with. You can't just memorize xx terabytes of data
.
To me, figuring out the best way to get better at poker is one of the most basic, indispensable and important tasks for a poker pro. So to me, reading those academic papers is what being a poker pro in 2016 is all about. If you disagree with that, I get that, but I also kind of think you're wrong ;p
This is an American forum so cycling probably isn't the most well known sport, but there's a dislike towards professional cyclists who race based on what their cycling computer tells them (heartbeat, wattage etc) and a bias towards guys that just attack and play it by feel. Not unlike GTO vs feel players really. The thing is, whatever way you look at it, the computer cycling guys are just better cyclists. And the goal of a cyclist is to be the best cyclist, not to please some old school myth by playing it by feel. Just like the goal of a poker player should be to be the best poker player, not whine about how having to read papers and grinding excel/solvers takes away from the glory of the game (imo).
To use another necessarily imperfect analogy, imagine two restaurant owners in 2008.
One is on top of this thing called the internet and has a custom made online reservation system almost no restaurant owner knows about that, and gets more clients that way.
The other is not on the lookout for how new technology might impact his business and thus has no clue.
In 2011, as online reservations systems become ubiquitous, the other guy is like "wait you had a custom reservation system since 2008? that's not what restaurants should be about, it should be about cooking and building a relationship with clients, i know respect your less for your success than i did before"
Whereas the first guy is like "well ok bro, to me restaurants are also about figuring out how new technological developments can make your restaurant more succesful. ofcourse, you won't get anywhere without that cooking and client relationship thing"
Like those restaurant owners, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree
Last edited by kaby; 09-06-2016 at 04:48 PM.