new breed - plays so much online poker to catch up for experience against old breed!

FYP.

In all seriousness I think its wildly innacurate to say new players are the only ones who adapt their game and old players are stuck in one style and don't grow. Clearly, old or new, anyone can stick to a stragety and refuse to work on their game past a certain point, and even show a profit (ABC nits at micro no limit, for instance). And anyone, old or new generation, can choose to work on introducing new concepts to their game and grow as a player. And, of course, their winnings can suffer for it if they aren't applying a concept in the right way.

good point, evolution will happen so make sure you evolve or expect to be left behind. even if you do not use new concepts/strategys you learn it will help in identifying opponents plays/ways of thinking.

The old time players generally had less passion for the game because the key ingredient when you are being dealt so few hands an hour, was finding, romancing, and taking advantage of bad players. Pros were considered hustlers rather than poker experts and they had less incentive to make their game razor sharp.

I read this as new bread vs old bread. FTR old bread makes way better toast.

can anyone here tell me doyle brunson isn't passionate about poker?

or stu ungar wasn't passionate about poker and card games in general?

there's a great story in amarillo slim's book about nights spent in hotel rooms discussing strategy and coming up with ideas to beat the games they were playing in.

i always rememeber something doyle said in his blog "old school, new school it doesn't matter,the only thing that does in poker is figuring out a way to get your opponents chips into your stack."

Thats what they did.

these old timers spent 1000's of hours on the road and put themselves in many dangerous situtaions to play poker. to dismiss their passion for the game because they didn't evolve to play like ivey or durr do today is just BS IMHO.

I would agree with Keonosdog in saying it is pretty obvious that guys like Brunson, Chip Reese, and such had alot of passion for the game. I 'm sure Doyle still must have as he still likes to get out and play as much as he can. I think the old guys still have lots of knowledge to pass on if given the opportunity.

+1

very good point

Ironic the mass multitablers being revered by the young kids and the old timers getting no respect, being called uncreative and outclassed.

Has anyone watched guys like Gable Kaplan, staples of the games in the 1970's lately? They three bet and make moves with air the would not have made with QQ preflop a few decades ago. On the other side of the fence, I have a close friend who is a SNE plays 1-2NL 24 tables, about 10k hands a day. I asked him if california was dumped by pokerstars like washington state what would he do to make money? He said he would play on full tilt. I said is that as profitable as Supernova elite? He said and I will quote him" no, I would have to move up in stakes and actually play poker"

Absolute ++ on this!. Brunson told of the times he and his buddies spent days and weeks dealing out 100s of hands manually to figure out certain odds; this obviously before the computer age. To say these guys didn't try to improve their game, and that they don't still, is, well, wrong.

To the one who said that the newbies have no ego: that statement alone shows high ego, in and of itself, considering the advantage he/she has over the old schoolers from the advent of computers.

Yes. Absolutely right.

Computers and the Internet give us a tremendous advantage over previous players.

I think we need to show respect for former players who paved the path we are following now.

exactly.

i've been playing poker for about 2 years recreationally now.

i've played 150,000 + plus hands just playing maybe an average of ten hours a week.

how long would that have taken in the pre-computer age?

Brunson and Ungar are more legend then old school...do you have respect for Sam Grizzle or.uh hem..Russ Hamilton? Certainly many old school players deserve tremendous respect..but..many do not.

I don't think too many seasoned pros play poker simply for the fun aspect of it. I think a major motivator is the money and many look at it like a job. I mean, I love poker but after several 50+ hrs weeks, I don't have the same passion as when I don't play it for a while. If I did poker 40 hrs a week or 48 weeks a year, I would look at it like a job at that point.

Now, if you are an "old breed" and have other sources of revenue other than the felt, you will be looking at the other revenue while you play poker. As soon as the other revenue hits your nut, you won't need to put so much time into poker.

Plus, the "old breed" is older in age and you can't compare the passion for poker of a 20-25 year old without a family versus a 45 year old with a family (wife plus 2+ kids) with already 10+ years of poker experience. These two "breeds" are simply at different points of their lives with totally different priorities.

Plus, I think being newer to the game (under 5 years) makes you more interested in it since it's still new and everything. After 10 or even 20 years at any job, you will start to get bored of the same thing over and over again. I'm sure that Doyle has a totally different approach to poker than a hot shot 22 year old.

It's not just old breed vs new breed. It's people in different stages of their lives and their careers. Those "new breed" kids will be old breed one day and they will be saying how these new young kids are not respecting their elders.

One of my favorite Doyle Brunson quotes:

Several touring pros were asked what they would give up to get a Main Event bracelet. Doyle replied, "I'm old fashioned. I would give up the bracelet, give me the cash."

Hello everyone,

For me, each of has its own taste, each are unique, each one are different. we cannot just say that new breed are better than the old or vice versa, we need to balance of else can they do, or rather what certain things can they do not do.

When it comes to poker, its a matter of strategic planning, charisma, experience, and the competency. Ans since each of the players are different, they have different styles on playing.

Now lets look for the old breeds, you see, there's nothing wrong with the old breeds, they have their own strategy, game, or plan in playing poker. What matter is the one who wins and the one who losses.

Now lets dealt with the new breeds, these people are the one's who started in an online game, they are the one who are being referred as the "new generation", well we can't blame them since, they are surrounded with this technologies, and we can't even blame them for learning poker through an online game.

Finally, i can say is it doesn't matter whether you belong to an old breed or the new breed, as long as both players are enjoying the game, I think that what really matters.

But Doyle and company had certainly played more hands than their opponents from whom they won the most money. If Doyle (or someone else) could get in a room with a rich fish he could win huge -- his edge over his opponent was immense. You may have played 150k+ but you don't even have an edge over many of the people you will play. You wouldn't have an edge over me and I suck.

If you had a time machine then maybe your 150k+ would help a lot -- unfortunately you live in a time when 150k+ isn't even a lot of hands. There is really no point in saying "it's more than the old school played in 10 years" (or whatever) because you aren't playing them then you're playing us now.

As for respect, I'd much rather read the life story of a road gambler than that of someone who sat home for ten years playing 20+ tables at once. Yes, technically the new school may "know more" but only in relation to another era. They don't know much more than each other and that's the whole point of the game -- to exploit an edge.

I think the post earlier by Gibson sums it up for me:

I always thought the point of playing poker was to win money. If I gave it any secondary value it would be the social aspect (live play only obviously). Third would be interest in game theory. Therefore, if, like many of the FTP guys, I was making more money elsewhere, that would take priority. It wouldn't be a cop out as the whole point was making money. I would have never deviated from my original goal.

Young people come along and are better than those before them and don't show them proper respect sometimes. This happens in pretty much everything.

Sounds like a modern day online bum hunter.

My view of the game is based on people that take the game seriously. Again,if the money doesn't mean anything to them they won't play. Some people play as a pass time like Mason Malmuth does occasionally in the 30-60 Bellagio Game. He's a wealthy man and wealthy men play poker at lower limits because they are bored and can't find anything else to do with their time. But they couldn't care less if they win or lose. They don't take the game seriously. They do no try to improve. They are bored people.

I would not use the word bored. Some people just like poker. If I have a few free hours I enjoy playing poker. I don't play high stakes but I still want to win and derive satisfaction from winning. You are right that many people don't put in the effort needed to be great. But whats wrong with that? If you enjoy playing basketball pick up games with your friends it does not mean you have to go shoot free throws or work on your ball handling skills in your free time. Being just capable at something you enjoy is fine. Getting really good at it may not be something you feel is even worth expending the effort to achieve.

I think most poker "pros" would want me at the table -- certainly by image and probably by skill level, too. Yet I find very few at lowish stakes do even the minimum socializing talked about by the old players. I realize the interest in "romancing" someone at 1-2 or 2-5 NLH is not the same as romancing Andy Beal, but I'm not asking for much. I don't need to tell you my life story or hear yours. Often times I'm not even asking for serious chit-chat or fawning congratulations on mediocre play, I could just do with some non-sunglasses eye contact or non-Ipod staredowns while you look like someone just kicked you in the groin. A vibe at the table that is different than a meat-packing room. My alternative to poker is family time or the pit or sports betting or some other recreational activity or a real job. Sometimes I even drink a few.

Pennywise, pound foolish.

Enjoyed reading the different views posted in this thread. Do believe that a productive player must be hungry with desire to win and always open minded with the will to learn day n and out and thats why the "new breed" has an edge.

Drive+Work ethic+ Time+ A few brain cells= Skill and moneys.
Lack of drive+other priorities=a deteriorating game.

IMO age is irrelevant. What matters is the willingness to learn and apply knowledge every day. 65 or 21, the guy who studies harder and plays more hands walks away a winner. Maybe more of the "old breed" are studying and staying ahead of the curve less than the new wave of players, but you can't lump the poker landscape into two categories.

how refreshing it is to hear somebody just get it and put it in words that anybody can understand. Unfortunatively many younger players do not heed these words at all. Some still berate the fish and are as antisocial as possible. The beauty is that there are still some of us left and good games to be enjoyed. What is going to be really revealing is in say 10 years from now, what are those young players going to be saying about the younger kids coming into the game and how will they after 10-15 years of live play be acting themselves? What many of the young players do not understand is what they can extract from a player in just casual conversation. Also if a player enjoys his trip to the casino, losing one two or three hundred for a good social experience is something that will bring him back. Remember this too, many young players think they know it all, just as i did when i was there age. I will also confess that many of these young players are very good. But also remember young men, if you are so great at poker why are you still playing 1-2 or 2-5 no-limit and not moving up. I know it is because you are making a living being a "pro" and have a great life at the same time. BS!!! Relax play great poker and enjoy life. Hope to see you at the tables and have a good conversation. Winning with a smile is ok.