The “new breed” of young internet players are not dominating the “Old School” players like Chan, Doyle, Hellmuth, Eskimo and T.J. Cloutier because these brash and overconfident 25 year olds are better players. They are dominating simply because there are just so many more of them.

I don’t think this truth is debatable. It’s analogous to why more women aren’t making it deep. There are just too few of them. They are a minority. Like women players, the “Old School” players have now become a minority. Superiority in numbers, not skill, is the real reason why the internet kids SEEM to be dominating them in the WSOP Main Event.

Three betting, playing against a person’s range, floating. Puggy Pearson, Johnny Moss, Jack Strauss and Bill Smith knew these things back in the 1980s. They just didn’t have names for them but they knew what they were. They called them names likee re-raising, putting the other guy on a hand, sandbagging, etc. “Floating” is no big frickin’ deal!!! Players have been doing them since the 1970s!

Kids today should give more credit to the “Old School”. The “New School” is only dominating because there are more of them. And as the Old Schoolers age and die out it will create the FALSE illusion of how great the New Schoolers are compared to them. But the fact is a 5 person basketball team will always beat a 1 person basketball team, no matter what. This explains why the internet players are dominating the “Old School” in the WSOP Main Event.

because they are better players.

Because the old school guys are stubborn and dont want to learn from us young players since they have too big of an ego, I remember Andy black confessing that about 2 years ago he was in denial that he was a good player when he really had to improve.

what is this even supposed to be

spam link in post. nice.

There are more of them AND they are better.

They are better ONLINE with their VPIPs and PFR statistics but all of the moves are the same. Blocking bets, donk bets, putting people on a range of hands, position. Same thing. If 10 people join a tournament, 9 African-Americans, and 1 Caucasian, of course, the African-Americans win most of the time.

there is one reason and one reason only you think age has anything to do with it.(and age deosn't)

it's purely a number situation. it's the same reason men dominate women in the WSOP, there simply are not as many.

:/thread

racism ITT

wtf

lol did you really call Doyle, chan and the other guys a bunch of girls?
nice one

Questions like these amuse the **** out of me when asked in a poker forum. The obvious answer would be because there are more of them.

1) There are more of them.
2) They generally work harder on improving their games.
3) They have more stamina.

The edited version is spot on. Well done

If I used women vs. men instead of African-American vs. Caucasians, would you call this thread "SEXIST"?

The younger players have played more hands in their lifetimes. They are more experienced & therefore on average, better overall at the game.

how do idiots from northern Europe perform in your example?

On what basis do you make these claims? Sure there are more "new online players" and that is definately a part of why they are running deeper but you have no facts to support the other side of your argument that Old School is more skillful...

old people are stuck in their ways, younger people are more willing to change/learn

lol... funny stuff. If anything, young people didn't know a damn thing, so they learned a "new way"

I think most old players use feel more than math to play, but that has changed/is changing for the better players. I'm almost 50 and use advanced game theory as my basis for playing.

there isn't anything a young man can learn that I can not.

It wasn't spamming. I have absolutely nothing to gain from people buying that book.

I saw that "Tilt Phil" book on the online bookstore this morning and was even planning to start a new thread about it because it was very funny. But I got too much criticism from starting "bad threads" by other posters, which is totally false, and that's why I just put it the link in this thread. I have absolutely nothing to do with "Tilt Phil" and I wish someone would post a link to it because it is totally hilarious.

stop making threads theodore

And on what basis do people have who say the younger players are better? A very common opinion these days.

i think you vastly underrate how much the game has evolved since the 70s and 80s. even since 5 years ago, the game has changed a lot. in the 80s people would basically onle 3bet with 4 hands and had no idea about merging their range etc. i am not saying that there aren't a lot of oldschool players who are good, but that has to do with the fact that their game has adapted as well. you make it sound as if the top players were playing as well in the 70s and 80s as they are now, when that is not the case.

because your average "live oldschool player" has what? 3-5k tournaments worth of experience? some online grinders play that in a month for years now ... and you can't argue that practice makes perfect. it's the way it is in anything you do.

your average online grinder that has roll to play $10k events sees through all the bull**** and can understand the game so much better than your average live player who can just win against the dumbest people in this game (casual players, tourists, whatever ..) and that's pretty much it. once you start ****ing with them they are lost. don't be mad. it's just the characteristic of a game, you can't lean just as fast when you play 20 hands an hour as opposed to 1000 hands an hour.

Because 2+2 collectively has played billions of hands and has hosted extremely active forums in which every strategy imaginable has been subjected to intense mathematical and logical analysis by many very smart, highly educated, and intensely dedicated individuals.

And those with the best results often have those results AND their strategies available to the public at an extremely detailed level.

And the current "young guns" are using those strategies which have emerged as optimal out of that intense and unprecedented learning environment.

Do you really think T.J. Cloutier (or whoever) can overcome this sort of advantage with "instincts"?