Let me tell you a story about the Tortoise and the Hare:

The Tortoise started out at your local card room, slowly learning the game through trial and error, listening to the tales and stories of those who came before him. He learned to be patient, to use psychology to get into his opponents heads, learned about how the game ebbed and flowed like a river, and to wait for just the right moment when he could aggressively slam his chips in the middle and take down what was rightfully his. Some nights he came home a massive winner. Other nights, he walked home with nothing but lint in his pockets. This was the life tho, and he wouldn't trade it for anything.

The Hare started out online, and before you know it he was raking in pots left and right. He absorbed everything he could learn about statistics, variance, hand ranges, and mathematics, and before long he was playing 24 tables at once. He didn't need to learn about psychology, about patience, about ebb and flow, because there was ALWAYS another hand to play. If he got sucked out on, so what? As long as he played his solid game things would average out in a very, very short period of time. If he found he was keeping up with the game and had some spare time to think, he would add another table! More tables means less overall variance! ITS MATH!!

One day the Tortoise and the Hare met on the street and both immediately disliked eachother. The Tortoise accused the Hare of being an upstart and a egotist, the Hare accused the Tortoise of being old, slow, and refusing to change. Both felt their way was the best. Both felt the others' time was coming very, very soon. Even though they played the same game, they refused to associate with eachother. The Hare could see no reason to slow down and think, while the Tortoise could see no reason to speed up and change.

Then one day they both happened to be watching the Tele, and on it a Blueshell and a Jackrabbit were dueling it out heads up for a poker championship. Each had very fat stacks in front of them, and both were using unusual tactics against their opponent. The Jackrabbit was aggressive, but not nearly enough to the Hare's liking. The Blueshell was patient but was not waiting as much as the Tortoise thought he should be. Both were obviously using psychology, and were both spouting mathematics and reasoning when making their decisions.

Why would the Jackrabbit be so restrained, said the Hare?

Why would the Blueshell be so aggressive, said the Tortoise?

And that's when both the Tortoise and the Hare realized, that even though they were playing the same game neither one of them had taken the time to learn what the other player had to offer. They were so focused on what made them Different they didn't realize there was something they could teach eachother.

The Blueshell and the Jackrabbit had learned from one another...and that's why both the Blueshell and the Jackrabbit became World Champions

The Moral of the Story?

Who gives a rats ass if New Breed or Old Breed are better? Both sides need to take a step towards one another and learn what they have to offer. Only by combining the two will a truly world class player emerge - We've already seen the Third Generation start to rise, and none of them will ever claim that one "breed" is better than the other.

/Yeah, I suck at telling stories

That might be another 'New Breed vs. Old Breed' difference; where the line is when it comes to 'salty behavior' and berating people. Is it OK to call someone a fish or a donk to their face? Mutter it under your breath? Say one thing at the table then come back to 2+2 and talk smack?

Sometimes the heat of the moment gets the best of people, and people new to B&M games- particularly those used to having an outburst home on the Internet with no one watching- may need some time to adapt.

no, you don't

that was an excellent post , well said.


and to add to your point, who is the best all round player in the world?

who combines the best of both generations?

i don't really have to answer that question do i?

matasow

I am pretty old school when it comes to poker. I used to play at planet, paradise, party but outside a program called statking , which i used to track records, and poker office, i havent used any type of HUd (which i just looked up what it meant) , or HEM and pokertracker .

But i fall in that age group (34) where i used to play live exclusively down at the trop (pink chip ) or the taj , and when limit hold em was taking over stud (when i first remember going to card clubs it was 70% stud, 30% limit hold em ). i am trying to modernize my game , (i have been playing 100% live ), and im a small stakes player, but how do you guys look up stats ?? like say mine , superfigg on tilt and stars , is it possible to look at my old hands to see what my win/loss rate is? not to mention all the secondary stats im reading about now.

Seiborg. End of the old school vs. internet kid story and an exclamation point on evolution.

this is pure unadulterated bull ****.

One of the main differences between the young and the older players is that the younger players have more tendency to go on tilt more easily after a couple of bad beats. I am 59 years old and get along with all players, unless they want to slow roll or be antagonistic towards me. Heck, I find that most of the younger players act like gentlemen when their playing. There are always exceptions in all age groups, and I don't jump to conclusions about age generations. I judge them by what the have in their hearts and minds.

Today's pop quiz.

No fair using google.

When was the following passage written?

Wait just a minute here....are you suggesting that young people have always been cocky and disrespectful of their elders???

lol I guess... if you consider the 30s young...

The biggest difference that I find between the old and new is desire, plain and simple. In my case for example I have lost a lot of my youthful desire to be the best I could be. I played in Vegas from 2001 to 2009. I was a consistent mid limit winner (Bellagio regular). Granted I did not start playing for a living until after age 50 but I put a lot of effort into studying the game, discussing the game and trying different things to improve my game. Now, I could care less. I doubt any old school player has the heart, desire and energy to do the things necessary to really upgrade their game.

I left Vegas because I felt that poker was a dead end game. Well, the main reason I left was a new grand child but it was easy because I found poker a drag. By that I mean that once I became competent and a consistent winner I felt that poker was a brain dead game. Now to me Poker is a grind and I play very infrequently. The thought of the grind reminds me of why I quit working. I don't like to work.

Young players might want to consider the fact that if they are good enough to grind out a living at poker they might be smart enough and have the drive to do a lot better, money wise, working at something that leaves a lot of room to grow and doesn't end in a dead end.

I am 55 years old, and my timing hasn't exactly been great. I started playing in 2006 (the end of the poker boom) and I decided to play full-time, online, about a year ago.

Even so, I don't consider poker a "dead end", I consider it a means to an end. I'm transitioning to mostly live play, and I'll be ready when poker legislation comes to the USA and we get the next online boom.

I never worried much about whether or not poker could be a long-term career. I thought that I could make more money playing poker than doing anything else for which I was qualified. But making money doesn't tie you to a career--just the opposite. More money = more options.

With money, if I want to do something else, I can. I need about 10 courses to finish a bachelor's degree. I could take those courses without incurrining debt. I am a retired army musician, and with some extra time and money to brush up my skills and get a few professional quality instruments, I could play music for fun and profit.

Some of those options may or may not get me as much money as poker, depending on when the next boom is. But I have options. I don't consider anything where I can make a significant income as a "dead end". I don't care what the job is--give me enough money and I'll roll around in a pile of manure for your amusement.

With more money, we could do a lot of traveling when my wife retires. Money puts all kinds of options on the table.

The great thing about poker is that it can be whatever you want it to be. You can grind 70 hours a week and make a pile of money, and be, like Elmer Fudd, a millionaire with a mansion and yacht. It can be a hobby and/or a second income. You can grind on your desktop, or travel, and play when you feel like it, on your laptop. You can work a "regular job" and play poker at the casino one weekend a month.

Poker is a job where you can choose your hours, and make some good money. Poker isn't a dead end; it's flexible enough to be anything you want it to be.

Given our Disagreement I still wish you the best and if you are in Vegas between 14 June and 25 June please say hi.

You're right, we can agree to disagree, but there is one thing that you said (and I have heard it said by many others) that puzzles me. Why is it bad to grind? Is it somehow wrong to work hard at poker?

A lot of people work a lot of hours in their job, sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not. I once had a job at a company with a very small staff, which left a lot of overtime hours available when someone quit, got sick, or whatever.

I grabbed every hour of overtime I could get. I worked 8-, 12-, and 16-hour shifts. I worked any shift that was available, sometimes working all three shifts (first, second and third) in the same week. 60-hour weeks were not uncommon.

Not everyone wants to do that, of course. And some people can't due to poor health, family responsibilities, or other reasons. But in the real world, either because they want extra money, or they need extra money, a lot of people voluntarily grind big hours at whatever their job is.

What's wrong with a poker player with a strong work ethic choosing to do the same thing?

No, working hard at poker or anything else is not wrong at all. I don't believe that I ever even implied that working hard at poker was somehow bad. Working hard at something usually means that there is some personal worthwhile incentive for the person choosing to work hard. I do not believe that you can be good at poker unless you work hard.

But now that you've focused some on the word "grind", let me tell you that I believe that anything that feels like a "grind" cannot be something that I would look forward too doing. To me there is a difference to working hard and grinding.

So let me say that if you feel that working hard at winning at poker is for you then I agree (not that you need my agreement) that poker is for you. But if you feel that poker is a "grind" as I do then you might be better off looking elsewhere for your life's work. That is all I am saying to the "new breed". You are in a rather small minority when it comes to starting a poker career. Not many of us start when we are over 50. And I can tell you that even though you have been at it since 2006 you are still a newbie as far as most poker pro's that I know are concerned. You are still in that period that excitement from winning money at poker is one of the prime motivating factors.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I'm sorry, but like every poker problem I've come across the answer is purely situational and depends on the people playing the game. A desire to be the best and to improve no matter what you are doing transcends age, race, creed, and gender. You could be 16 or 61, and still have that fire. You just need to choose to have it.

I can only hope that you are right even though I believe that for the majority of old breed poker players I am correct. I think that Old players that have been successful for a long period will find it extremely difficult to change their game even if they thought it would improve their hourly rate.Set in ones ways is a very difficult if not impossible thing to overcome. Just look at Sklansky and Malmuth if you need examples. Don't forget that the old breed was once the new breed.

It seems so strange that a game as fluid and dynamic as poker could have anyone "set in their ways". Every few years there's new data, new information, new styles of playing that you have to adjust to or risk losing everything you've done over the past few years. There are always new opponents to figure out, new theories to test, new ways to play old hands....

Granted I'm 34 and young, and I'm sure that my statements are probably going to come back and slap me in the face when I get older, but right now it seems so.....strange.

Absolutely, and why not? I get to play a game and make money!

Every time there was a chess tournament in my area I would play, and it has never concerned me that I am a net loser in chess. But I get to play a game, I have the intellectual challenge of both playing and studying the game, and I get paid for it. Sounds like a great deal to me!

This is not an uncommon motivation for poker players. Several very good poker players played other games at a very high level, and switched to poker because there was more money in it. For example, Dan Harrington was a top backgammon player and a state chess champion.

No limit Holdem aside the game of poker is not "fluid" as you claim. It is not dynamic and has not changed since the days of Doc Holiday. Sklansky wrote the definitive Holdem Poker Book and Sklansky and Malmuth wrote the definitive mid limit Holdem and Stud Books and with Ray Zee the definitive HiLo spit book. These books have strategy in them that is as powerful now as when they wrote them and will never be out of date, let me say that again, never be out of date. With a little adaptation they are also, I believe usable at High Limits although I do not have any experience to back up high limit claims.

The reason I put NLH aside is that as far as strategy is concerned it is still a relatively new game. (Doyle's strategy worked because he focused on his results and those results were against poor NLH players. I do not believe that his book is pertinent in today's cash games but maybe a little). No Limit Poker is a unique way of playing poker that has just begun to be analyzed. The biggest problem NLH players have with finding a set strategy is that Sklansky and Malmuth focused their energies on Limit poker. And now they are too old to give NL poker the attention it deserves. Sklansky tried writing a NLH book and all I can say is ...bah humbug...he and Malmuth should have stuck to what worked...collaboration and solid information gleaned from other poker pros.

NL Holdem strategy needs to be developed in the same manner that SKlansky and Malmuth attacked Limit Holdem in their HPFAP and 7SFAP series. They used lots of interviews with lots of different pro's and lots of math to back up their strategy. I haven't seen that done with NL Poker. Most of these new breed poker players talk about a Game Theory Optimal strategy for NL and Limit Poker as if they believe that because there is a point on a graph somewhere that says one is possible that one day a computer program will spit it out. Ain't gonna happen.

If you find poker to be an "ever changing and evolving game" you must be a rookie who hasn't been around the bend yet.

I hope all the young pros quit poker due to what pokervintage says so i can make more money.

young guns ftw the old guy can only win live but even that wont last much longer

I'll give you credit, you certainly sound like someone who has played the game for a very, very long time and has spent exhaustive time discerning the stratagems of poker. However, one of the greatest things about life is that a new set of eyes unbound by the shackles of the past can quickly come up with new ideas that previous scholars were either unable or unwilling to consider. Limit poker is a fairly mechanical "adventure", similar to if-then-else programming, so there is a finite limit to what can be done with it....but who knows what will be discovered in the years ahead of us? To me, that's part of what makes the future so exciting.

Full Disclosure - I hate limit poker. I learned it because its what people were playing, but....man screw Limit Poker.

Anytime you throw the "No Limit" rules at a game, be it stud, Omaha, HE, the game dynamic changes. The ability to risk a variable amount of your stack at any time changes many aspects of the game and thus, most people will never agree on the finer points of it - Nor will a computer be able to generate a optimal strategy. Computers can do a great deal of work, but they cannot do everything. It's like saying "Whats the best way to listen to music?" - No one is going to agree on specifics, but I bet everyone can say "Oh, probably in a quiet room".

It's actually pretty fascinating to have this intelligent conversation with you and then have you throw out that little jab at the end, like I wounded your pride with something I said previously. Do you believe I am discounting your experience? If that is the case, please know that I am not attempting to attack or destroy your years of experience at poker, but rather I I'm wondering if its designed to get me to divulge my poker experience, which if that is the case a more direct question would be "How long have you been playing poker?"

In either case, I am a rookie in many aspects of poker and a veteran in others. I've been around the block with 5 Card single and double draw, and with 5 and 7 card stud - Have been playing those games since I was a wee lad. Holdem I have less than 10 years of experience playing, and I would say a good 2/3rds of that playing experience is strictly NL tournament based. Only in the last 3-4 years have I been delving into cash games. This is probably the source of my "youthful idealism".

well im 49 years old 1st week of july and have been playin no limit holdem live for 30 years and had to change it to a point because the game has changed so what i did was go after the young grinders who are changin this game everyday and ghost and talk on skype to keep up with the times and it is the best thing i ever did

im just sayin