He did seem to have a bit of an ego in the interview. Shoud he not have a bit of an ego? Has he not earned the right? He's proven himself enough to toot his horn a little.

kudos to him for not sugar coating it

This isn't a good site in which to bash Barry Greenstein. We are lucky that he posts here and we like to think of him as one of us. You are still a stranger here so becareful about bashing one of our own.

Taken literally, BarryG is advising amateur players to not try to improve, because they can never get to be as good as the pros. "Don't take it seriously," he says. Obviously, many people take their hobbies seriously, and even older people can improve at poker if they put the effort in.

I really doubt that's what he meant. The most plausible expanation is that Barry misunderstood the question.

Everyone is an amateur before becoming a 'pro'. You aren't born a pro.

Barry was talking about an amateur who wanted to improve, while remaining an amateur. not an amateur who wanted to become a professional. and what advice did barry give? he said, 'he should not be playing poker seriously'. this means (in my opinion) that the amateur should not be trying to reach professional standards.

but barry doesn't say 'give up'. his advice is actually constructive. what is his advice? in my opinion it is this: instead of trying to play like a professional try and learn to table select.

so barry fully understands the question and gives practical constructive advice on how that player can improve their game. this thread is already long enough and wtf? no-one has seen this yet????? or if they have have kept quiet about it, lol.

God, who are you, Norm Crosby? Raymond Johnson, Jr.?

seeing as you refer to me as 'God' we can run with that...

the question did presuppose that. any other interpretation would be "reading into it" something that actually is not there. we can speculate on the interviewer's intentions but all we have now is the text. if "The question didn't presuppose that the amateur wanted to remain an amateur." as you suggest then the interviewer would not have used the phrase, "his game".

"LH: If an amateur player asked you for advice to improve his game, what would you tell him?"

"...while remaining an amateur..." was nowhere in the question. You added that yourself. If I'm wrong, correct me.

you are wrong. it is implied in the text. to say that the amateur wanted to go pro would be an inference.

i am using "going pro" and "reaching professional standards" to mean 2 different things.

I think you're an idiot. Your posts are incoherent, and I won't be responding to any more.

the most plausible explanation is that you are confused. what you mean my "seriously" and what barry means by "seriously" are 2 different things.

yes, you shouldn't be responding to posts you don't understand. as a reader of the National Review you probably think everything you don't understand is an incoherent conspiracy written by idiots. against you.

OP instead of shooting your mouth off in this forum, take a trip to Vegas bring your entire BR and visit Bobby's room I am sure they will be more than happy to give you a seat so you can teach BG a lesson

I read his column too and I started playing poker later in life.

Many people think that they have a handle on the game without statistics to backup their claims. Age isn't a factor here, but my perception is that young people have no clear idea about the economics of life. Many of my students look at life as, "I'll have a $100,000 job before I'm 30" and anything less is not being successful. There is no reasoning with them, many don't listen, and some come back and tell me that I was right.

However, with poker, since anyone can play and gain some early success with it, age does not matter. We will have 40-somethings ask "Should I go pro" with as much veracity as the 20-somethings. What BarryG said, even though I think he overgeneralized some, that playing as a professional is harder than anyone thinks and even saying that it's probably a lot more difficult.

If someone is mature enough, no matter his or her age, assessing his or her game accurately can go a long way to being successful today. In addition, learning about the nuances of table selection and setting realistic goals also helps. I have no desire to prove anything to anybody. If a better player challenges me heads up, I'll laugh...it doesn't matter. I play this game for different reasons than some. If I were younger though, when I didn't have enough sense, I would get involved with foolish pissing contests. (Since when did poker become an issue of being the best of the best. I thought the point was to be the best at your table...anyway...)

So to me, it's a card game, that I'm learning to play well, where I'm a better player today than I was yesterday, and I'll be a better player tomorrow than I am right now. I have no aspirations for professional status, but I know I'm better than the average recreational player.

And that if I have an edge in the games that I choose to play, I'll win in the long run. I'll pass up games where my edge is smaller so I can hold onto my perceptions, because I'm fairly confident that I'll be just fine.

However, Barryg wasn't speaking to me...so I didn't take it personally...

"You are not a unique and beautiful snowflake."

You guys are reading too much into Barry's words, like its some sort of Biblical passage. Ask a Mod to PM him to clarify what he really meant.

when i started playing wayyyyyyyyyy back in 2004 at 21 it was also a lot easier to move up quickly because of easy bonuses
I was a break even player for 3-4 months but after that time i had about 10 grand in bonuses and was starting to be a winning player
i started with 500 bucks and no poker skill at all ( i always had a good aptitude for numbers, probability etc and had displine from card counting)
I h ad no real responsibility
If I had kids, a job etc it would have been a lot harder to put the time in to get good
If I was 21 today I might have quit after a month or 2 when I still had that 500 dollars

pretty much agree except im generally only playing 3-4 tables at a time

yes it is- the older you get the harder it is to play for as long and as many hands
generally speaking younger people also have more free time to get a lot of practice in

In real life Sarandon chose the young guy.

exactly
i generally hate when people have egos but have no problem with him having one
i used to laugh when people said similar thing about Clemens or Jordan