Quote:
Originally Posted by XtraScratch8
I barely even know what the argument or point is as it’s all so vague and hardly worth discussing or getting worked up about.
As wj294 said, I’m 100% positive I have more perspective on this as I played then and now. If you want proof of what I’m talking about just go on YouTube and watch any nosebleed stakes live game such as HSP, which had your man crush play on them. You will see extremely fishy plays on the regular.
I also see modern games that have your man crush Dwan playing on them and I’m 100% certain that he is the biggest or second biggest spot on the table.
As Rickroll said, you could basically suck at poker, not study, not try to improve and hang at reasonable stakes a decade ago. I know because I did exactly the same thing. I am three to four times the player I was then as I am now and I seriously question what stakes I’ll be beating online when I start up again soon. It’s just reality. There’s way fewer people punting stacks.
Your idols grew up at the best time to make millions, you’re likely growing up at the worst time. I’m not even trying to be an ***hole to you. I’m just stating reality. I’m going to continue on with my day and disengage in this discussion because I don’t expect it to alter your POV whatsoever. I hope you do well, and that’s not sarcasm.
There’s a huge difference between your overall sentiment, that poker is 1000x harder nowadays, which I agree with, and what you and wj are saying. Not every amazing online player nowadays is a human solver- that’s a fact. A lot of those same people would struggle to make the adjustments necessary to beat a pool of the same wizards rather than an anonymous player pool with population tendencies to exploit.
That’s what I’m disputing. Whether or not it’s important/relevant/etc. is a completely different story.
Since you guys seem to think Dwan is overrated or something take Jungleman/Galfond. They were crushing pre Black Friday and still around nowadays. Yeah they’ve gotten much better over the years but it’s not like they’ve ever lost momentum due to things getting more difficult. They’re still among the best in the world- even today.
To say you would take a winning 200z reg over someone like that is insane. And it defies logic. Chess has also gotten much harder over time. For reference, I could beat the best chess engine in the 70s/80s with my ten year old self. Despite that resource, Fischer’s play in the 1960’s would arguably still make him one of the top 15 players in the world today. And Kasparov’s in the 90s would certainly crush today.
A lot of the reason why some people get worse as they age at anything strategical is because their priorities change. And they’re not as sharp. And they’re not willing to adapt. And a million other reasons that suddenly don’t matter I guess.
Last edited by RoadtoPro; 03-23-2020 at 03:45 PM.