True, but many players, particularly old school guys learned through experience. If we lock someone in the lab with pio for 2,000 hours but they have no experience actually playing, will they have an edge over a 10 year pro who is crushing his stake but barely studies (believe it or not there are still guys doing well without being gto)? I believe that playing and studying aren't mutually exclusive. Actual playing hours still account for something. I do believe as the game become "solved" very analytical people can become quite good, quite quickly, far more quickly than the "10,000 hour rule". A mix of study and play is def best. Some guys can prob be elite in 2 years, if they can mentally handle the swings is another story

I think the fascinating thing about poker is many people can crush micro $0-$22 level but as soon as they move up to $109s and above a significant number of people just get destroyed.

1k studying pry enough, but need playing in there too, so I put 5k hrs.

what is studying defined as? I've never really "studied" poker in the way most people think of it (pio, equilab, stove etc) but I play/think about the game almost 24/7 and that's been enough

What's a good winrate at those stakes? 6-7 bbs/100?

Considering running 1-2k under ev isn't uncommon in the least, it's no surprise people get crushed if they're anything in the 1-4 range. The margin for error becomes much smaller.

right? ive been walking in circles for 3 months and cant find the damn pikachu

also this. youd be more likely to draw vs a chess GM than a sc(2) GM, and sc1 is even worse

This

The most you can bet, is the size of a pot!

I say 3.50 hours, since all you have to know is when to hold them, when to fold them, when to walk away, and when to run. Easy game. Also, never count up your winnings until after, I guess it makes the losers feel bad or something.

Tis seventeen score and ten.

starcraft pretty ridiculous in scope. haven't seen enough of league for comparison.

I have played over 10k hours for sure and I still momentarily get confused when I have 99 on TT555... is it a chop ? or do I win ?

Hitting a curve ball ..... Michael Jordan couldn't do it, so it must be tougher than NLH.

Not that much. 210 minutes.

Knowledge is useful, skill is power.

Learning to play takes months and then it takes its time to up the levels. It takes like 0.5 to 2k hours to pass half the journey to mid-limits at NLH or PLO cash if one starts from the micros.

If one starts from somewhat higher, it should take some more time there but one doesn't need to learn to optimally beat the lower limits. The master level is known to be another step, so not covered here.

Much depends on the knowledge one gets and if one already has that and the experience level in NLH or PLO, and if it is PLO or NLH, I suppose. The NLH technique was more supportive and I got a reasonable amount of experience fast after PLO. I spent 5/6th of my time in PLO compared to NLH cash and NLH MTTs and I did better at NLH.

Depends on what/how you study. minimum 1000 hours I'd say. Infinite hours if you study badly.

this. Or about 3,5 hours per day. Hope this helps.

maaaan the about three fiddy thing is getting oooold

Those who merely use the available tools will never be able to compete with those who make the new tools.

Then other people just spend more time with the same tools you're using and become better than you. It's all relative.

Depends if you're from Northern Europe or not...

treefiddy

1,500 milllion

Study untill you are sure you know everything. Then get very lucky!