Just finished reading Sklansy's article New breed vs old breed where he says the lack of respect the new internet breed shows the old time live players is un just. I would like to offer a different opinion from his.

I think what seperates the "new breed" is a genuine passion for the game...the constant study and discussion on forums such as this one.The lack of complacency and ego.The raw energy if you will.

So I dont look at it as old vs new but rather individuals whom take it upon themselves to constantly better their game. I look at someone like Phil Ivey who may be considered old school by some,(pre poker boom) who probably plays more online then anyone elese from the old live crew. He adapted to the new players and new styles and just keeps hard at the game.Compare him to the rest of the original Team Full Tilt..(Howard...Jesus...Juanda) all phenominal players but I doubt they work as hard at poker because they probably dont have that passion.

Another pre boom player that comes to mind is Negreanu..he is pretty open about learning from the net kids and admitting he still has some things to learn about the game. I suspect in a few years he will be a big winner.

So my point is I think Mr.Sklansky(the Man) should make a distinction between open and close minded players instead of old and new school. I see no reason why Hellmuth cant learn about equity vs range and why Lederer cant 4 bet bluff with air.

One last note..just because your a new school internet player doesnt mean youre good..I started online and I'm awful

Nice to hear your view. I also am an old school player but when I was learning the old school way I was very rebelous and often made my own rules. In doing my view changed my game. Thinking that a certain type of people would change the whole game is ridiculous since we're still playing and we know the rules. Still break them from time to time for fun and to prove I can still do it and not get caught! Well once in awhile I am caught but that's fun too. I play live 2-3 times a week and online almost daily.
Late nights are my favorite time to play and i will often drink a few when the bar opens the next morning, and rarely more than 2 when i play. This helps me identify characteristics much better and make well thought decisions.

Just played 12 hrs at a 4/8 game and made a $50 BI and 2 rebuys, to begin dominating the table walking away with $489 and a lot of pride! Definitely had a few Coronas at 6 Am that day. :-)

wtf u start drinking @ 6am? respect

The thing is....The original Full Tilt Team make so much money from FTP that it is hard to be passionate about the game.

Howard even said that the constant money from business makes it difficult to fully concentrate at the table. He is always thinking about business decisions.

The "old breed" can't be lumped into a group, they have to be looked at person by person. They all have their reasons for not being as passionate as before.

But I agree, I don't understand why someone like Phil Hellmuth doesn't add the "new breed" players tools to his toolkit.

Adapt or Die.

also the sheer volume of hands played. and the fact that the field of opponets is much more skilled ie tougher decisions. there are plenty of .50/1 grinders on pokerstars that have played 2x as many hands as phil hellmuth has lifetime.

FYP

Cop out...

Its a good point, i mean howard could play at the nose bleeds and to him its micro stakes. Who wants to work hard for cheeseburgers.

I wrote several articles and chapters showing how to assign probabilities within those ranges. I didn't go into great detail because I avoided writing to what was then the small audience of expert no-limit players who were trying to make a living off good no-limit players. But, any conscientious student could have extended my elementary examples.

In other words you held back. other people are now taking those concepts and investigating, but more importantly sharing. Something that you and mason were not willing to do. Excuse me for being on the attack but also your books were very poorly written. It doesnt matter how smart you are if you cant communicate it clearly it doesnt mean as much. Yes , you will always be remembered for theory of Poker, but things are now miles away from the last limit book(for example) you wrote .And really never a need to hold back because only a few can actually execute a fully robust poker strategy .

Well I have to say that I dont think anyone has done more to educate new poker players then Sklansky and Malmuth..their books are fantastic and they encourage rational thinking. Sklansky seems to enjoy challenging people to work their brains so while I find his comment "any conscientious student could have extended my elementary examples" somewhat condescending he is right.

I'm continually amazed by how bad people are at poker. I'm talking about winning players here. Yes David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth wrote the first serious poker theory books. And in this respect they are to modern poker what Newton is to physics. A term named after them (Sklansky bucks) and the basics explained. Nearly everything else has been done by others. It's pretty much completely pointless to withold information from the community because 90% of people will missapply the information to the extent of it becoming a major leak.

New alway better because old can have green stuff on it and it's make it less delicious


My two cent

You're certainly entitle to your opinion, but I've spent the last 25 years writing and publishing in this field, and our goal was to always out out top notch stuff. Good books aren't done quickly, just like this website wasn't built overnight.

Also, it's really only the last few years where the interest in the stuff that David talks about in his article is large enough for us to want to give it serious attention, but this doesn't mean we haven't been busy and working hard. Furthermore, what you may not understand is that both David and I each put in a lot of time and effort on every book that Two Plus Two produces, and this is done whether we are part of the author team or not, plus we are involved in a bunch of other stuff. So even if something, from your perspective, was held back, something else was produced.

MM

Some of the new guns give the old guard respect, and some do not. It is just like in all big time sports. Most athletes have no idea about the majority of great players of yesteryear. I remember when the NY Yankees had this "great" new prospect coming up at first base named Kevin Maas. In 1990 the yankees told him he would have a private coach names Chris Chambliss. Maas Asked "did he ever play the game?" He was then told Chambliss was also a NY Yankee, and played first base. They then told him Chambliss was an all star first basemen, #1 pick in the 1970 draft rookie of the year, had over 2100 hits in his 18 year career and a couple world series rings. Chambliss only retired 12 years earlier yet Maas never heard of him. FWIW Maas had a 5 year career and batted .230 lifetime.

Of new generation some will revere the old guard, some will look at them with contempt and some will know and care very little about Chip Reese and the other greats from the past. I do disagree with OP's contention that the current players do it for the "love of the game" more then the old school. The moneymaker boom happened because some account from Nashville Tenn sat in front of a 2.5 million dollar pile of money he just won by beating the best in the world. The old school guys like Lederer, Ivey, Pearson, never DREAMED the money in poker today would ever exist. Yet they still played. I would argue they exhibited more of a love for the game then the kids sitting in their homes playing online.

He's already a big winner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Negreanu

There is no way that the best work of Marxist theory was written by Karl Marx -- Marx's own writing is just soul-deadening. Nor is the best work of Sklanskyist theory written by Sklansky -- for just the same reason. But I have yet to see a modern poker book that doesn't operate almost entirely within the theoretical universe laid out in Theory of Poker. It's almost impossible for me to imagine how first-rate players would have conceived of the game of poker before Sklanskyism took over.

[QUOTE= I do disagree with OP's contention that the current players do it for the "love of the game" more then the old school. The moneymaker boom happened because some account from Nashville Tenn sat in front of a 2.5 million dollar pile of money he just won by beating the best in the world. The old school guys like Lederer, Ivey, Pearson, never DREAMED the money in poker today would ever exist. Yet they still played. I would argue they exhibited more of a love for the game then the kids sitting in their homes playing online.[/QUOTE]

thats an excellent point

It is far from a cop out. Poker is a competitive activity in which the prize and success is based on money. If the money isn't significant in some way then there is no point in playing. Try playing for tiddly winks and let me know how it goes.

pokervintage

new players = evolve/grow as players
old players = play one style/not willing to evolve with poker




m i rite?

Do you think that your narrow view has any bearing on someone else's motivations for playing poker? There doesn't have to be a point in playing at all, and at most any table you'll find players for whom the money isn't particularly significant. Some people actually enjoy the game.

With Lederer, if he's slacking a bit and not working on his game 24-7, who cares? Guy started the right business at the right time, and is swimming in the type of money that full-time poker pros can only dream of. He can fall asleep at the table for all it should matter to anyone else. Live and let live a little bit

but you have to lower that figure a little if they're multi-tabling or otherwise distracted while not at a B&M table ....

i also think some of the difference is responsibilities that come with age. What OP diagnoses as lack of "genuine passion" could simply be that for some people the post-boom came at a time in their lives when they have a house, a picket fence, 2.5 puppies, a goldfish, a job, a mortgage, an ex-wife and a future second ex-wife. All of which takes time from recreational or professional "genuine passion." For some, it's simply the lack of time, sadly.

+1 agree plus I think we have a lot of resources (hem ot) that seem necessary to advance now a days so u feel passionate about leArning because u want any little edge u feel the competition may have

I don't think you can say that new players have a genuine passion for the game and old schoolers do not. I don't think you can say that new players don't have egos. They have some mega huge egos.