This is going to be an odd question but at what age do poker players start to see a noticeable decline in their so called ability etc? I’m mainly discussing tournament play but something I’ve noticed is older gentleman tend to be pretty bad at poker. By no means do I say being older means you are a bad player as I play a very low buy in level compared to most people around here (my abi live might be 200-400).

I know most older people that play today came up at a time when poker was played in a much different (tighter, less 3 betting etc) manner but I was just wondering how long you think the young person today has to be a threat in a tournament? I would guess since poker is not an athletic sport..... prolly till what 70-80 if health is maintained and the ability to grind a long day is still around. Just would like to hear what people say. I’m in no means ripping on older poker players, etc in this post btw if it comes off that way.

yeah i agree about older players, many of them never broke through into that new wave of modern poker theory and precision. that said, i have played with some senior regs live and found some of them to absolutely crush. im thinking of one guy in particular who must be 80+, he is a war veteran, and he is really really good.

with all this new information about neuroplasticity emerging it seems pretty clear that brainpower is a 'use it or loose it' deal. i know everyone always brings up Doyle brunson, but he really is a good example. the guy used to weigh 400 pounds and he had cancer at one point which the docs said would kill him. now he is 85 and still winning in the big bet mixed games in bobbys room.

one thing i love about poker is that if you are a serious player you are always in a state of growth. the game is so incredibly deep and there are many varieties that you are constantly learning, and also realizing that you have barely scratched the surface. i think its a really healthy activity, similar to chess or sodoku

Almost zero relationship between age and poker skill.

Old players who are bad have either always been bad, or had failed to keep up with the evolution of poker.

Interesting topic i have considered this before. When i see a guy who is 60+ years old playing today its a natural reaction to assume he sucks and will not have a theoretically correct strategy and this is nearly always proved correct. Im 35 now and have played a few million hands online etc defo not near the top echelon of players but have that online background in the fundamentals that old players today lack. When im 60 there is no reason i won't still have the game i have today so id say the future isn't looking great when you have OAPs who know GTO!

I started to decline at about 22

It’s odd bc I feel most rec older players in live mtts play so face up. Recently in a 400 bi, like first few levels of a decent structured mtt, some younger player 3 bet an old man and the old man jammed maybe 125-150 bbs pre. The young guy tank calls kk but it was so obvious old dude has AA. Event if his range is qq+, still prolly a fold I wanna day bc it’s so heavily weight toward AA ( never happening with ak). I just find it odd that old players play so nitty and tend to play so face up.

I would love to see an old person show a big bluff someday but never happens I feel. Just my thoughts. I think it’s more of a coming up when poker sucked have old age thing no question. I feel in the early 90s, people prolly only 3 bet premium hands etc and most older rec players aren’t bright enough to adjust

When the internet generation gets old, it will change.

How much one declines with age, one can take a look into chess rating lists and see how the older players (40-50) do worse now than when they were younger; -50 rating points or less; one class is 100 or 150 points; there are still super grandmasters, the best of the grandmasters, at 40-50 age. The best are still strong grandmasters at old age if they kept playing, e.g. Viktor Kortchnoi; you could think that to be Doyle Brunson at live games.

The rating drop to Kortchnoi was maybe one class when he died to old age. One class online is like 200 vs. 400 or 500. 100 is pretty much the same as 200. So, when you are 70, you might have to settle for 200, if 500 was your top level, and at 40-50 to 400, if the games won't get tougher.

Hi jpoker10:

This is actually quite an interesting question. Years ago I used to play some limit hold 'em with poker legend Johnny Moss. When I first began to play with him, at Binion's Horseshoe Casino in Downtown Las Vegas, he had just turned 80 and was literally one of the worse players I had ever seen (and I was in my mid 30s at that time).

But I knew some players 15 to 20 years older than me who were adamant that Moss was once an excellent player who had just gotten old. I found this hard to believe since I would routinely watch him call a reraised pot before the flop with any ace. But I can't say that what I consistently heard wasn't true.

Another, perhaps more interesting question, is if you're an excellent player, how much do you need to lose in terms of knowledge and ability for you to become a losing player? Someone like Doyle Brunson still seems to play quite well, while Johnny Moss, based on my observation, certainly didn't.

Best wishes,
Mason

Green was an undergraduate at age 40 and came up with Green's theorem and a bunch of other important contributions.

Older chess ratings decline because the typical serious tournament requires mega stamina while remaining totally focused for usually multiple days. A single game can last four hours or more. Ratings are based on all the sanctioned games, not just the "final" match.

Championship qualifying matches and the "main event" are a lot like the WSOP main event. You might be playing the same guy day after day for hours on end. When you are not playing there is review, preparation for the next day, a 40-year-old grandmaster has a definite physical edge over an 60-year old grandmaster even if the old guy was once the young guy's coach.

It does seem that the best tournament players are young. I'd be inclined to believe that the peak tournament age is 21-35 but then was Daniel at the Aria even in May schooling the younger guys too.

Interesting.
Simple answer: Physical decline of the brain starts at around 25. But with practice and experience players (e.g. in chess) can still get better despite that. It is obviously not a sharp decline until you reach a very high age.
see e.g. this research http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7945569.stm

Side note on old poker guys:
At my local $100 Tourney there is a 86 yo guy who just crushes, because he plays a strat exactly inverse to what most of you are thinking:
He slowplays all his monsters. He fastplays all his marginal hands (don't know about correct semi-bluffs, though) and even uses second pair as kind of a semi-bluff. I don't think he is any good, but he somehow has figured out that most people fold to his aggression (and they still keep doing it)
And he figured out that slowplaying is good vs most opponents.
He limped Q8o in UTG once and barrelled twice with a gutshot + overcard, I called twice with top pair. On the river he was close to 3rd barrel, to which I would have folded, but luckily he gave up. I have been overfolding to him all the time before that hand!!!
On 3 other occasions he limped AA and AK at 10-15bb and took me out because I jammed (correctly) with a hand that turned out to be brutally dominated.

it's a very real phenomenon for various reasons ... I say an approximate number of meaningful decline is about age 55. Lots of variance as in most aspects of the game.