Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register

07-19-2011 , 11:08 PM
Lego05, It is necessary to throw in if the cards ran average or random, because of the amount of short term luck in the game, I've seen poker players come & go, good players kept under the radar & horrible ones made out to be stars over the years, In the end the creme of the crop will always rise. It's amazing at what a year of rungood will do to a players ego. The ones that grind everyday & know where their edge is over the other players will continue to survive. The ones that catch a trend & don't adapt later & only win because they ran above expectation for a year will fade out.
Quote
07-19-2011 , 11:09 PM
Whats the reason these young guys dominate old guys when they play against each other?
Quote
07-19-2011 , 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05
Most people highly overestimate the value of physical tells.

From what I can tell you seem to very highly overestimate the value of physical tells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDDtown
Lego, your wrong, It's the most underestimated part of the game bar noon, I'm glad most think that because that's where I get my edge, most don't even bother to look anymore, The amount of people that stopped watching physical tells because they couldn't figure out what to look for is unbelievable. they get frustrated because they can't figure it out. Obviously 99.5 % of players in this category including yourself. The small percentage that do far excel the other players, It's like when they say theres phil ivey & then theres everyone one else.

There is some truth to this, there are several players that I know that could murder any online player in a live game if the cards ran random. They will never give their secrets away because it's too valuable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05
Ah .... I don't really believe any of this. The reasons are pretty much the same as what I posted in the similar thread that you started.


Also, was it actually necessary to add the condition "if the cards ran random"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDDtown
Lego05, It is necessary to throw in if the cards ran average or random, because of the amount of short term luck in the game, I've seen poker players come & go, good players kept under the radar & horrible ones made out to be stars over the years, In the end the creme of the crop will always rise. It's amazing at what a year of rungood will do to a players ego. The ones that grind everyday & know where their edge is over the other players will continue to survive. The ones that catch a trend & don't adapt later & only win because they ran above expectation for a year will fade out.

The cards being dealt randomly does not mean that there will be no variance.
Quote
07-19-2011 , 11:21 PM
Doyle Brunson said it takes 1000 hands online to equal the learning experience of 1 hand offline. I can't remember where and when he said it but he said it.

People overrate the learning they get playing 10 tables like zombies. Automatic play does not have much value. Online, no one sees how you physically react to things.
Quote
07-19-2011 , 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganaram
How do you know what daniel cates does live? Do you know where he plays/ how often he plays?
He could be in Bahrain rite now killing the million dollar buy-in games...

Do you really think hi stakes poker is only what we see on tv? please.
i wasn't talking about cash games as there is obv no way for any of us to measure his success in that arena. i was talking about his live tourny results, which are abysmal at best, given the volume he's put in over the past couple years. ******s gonna ******
Quote
07-19-2011 , 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alvin the Chipmunk
Doyle Brunson said it takes 1000 hands online to equal the learning experience of 1 hand offline. I can't remember where and when he said it but he said it.

People overrate the learning they get playing 10 tables like zombies. Automatic play does not have much value. Online, no one sees how you physically react to things.
you should read Doyle's twitter and you'll find that most of what he says is similarly idiotic.
Quote
07-20-2011 , 12:00 AM
Take a guy like hoyt corkins, I know him pretty well. He doesn't play an internet math strategy but his results are almost as good as anyones, Hes a beast in deepstack tournaments. He relies hugely on reads from tells, His style is a little unorthodox because of this. Most players don't understand why he plays certain hands in certain ways, but he's great at sensing weakness
Quote
07-20-2011 , 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDDtown
Bobbys room wouldnt be my requirement for the best players in the world. They are mainly there because they're good players & have huge rolls. Some only because of online sponsorship.


I could hand pick 10 players, most of which you've probably never heard of, that could beat any 10 online players
No, you couldn't.
Quote
07-20-2011 , 12:53 AM
my god some of the posts itt (EDDtown/big meech) make me wanna jump off a bridge
Quote
07-20-2011 , 01:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostril dumbass
(the best poker book of the sixties recommended putting a submarine sandwich on the table when your opponents were hungry and you held the nuts)
lol awesome
Quote
07-20-2011 , 01:15 AM
omg you guys stop feeding this troll
Quote
07-20-2011 , 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlickDonkey
Name any sport/activity/skill where the older generation is better.
Sports, no, because they rely on physical skills which degenerate over time and there's nothing that can be done about that.

non-physical activities/Skills, almost every one. I would much rather have a doctor, for example, who has been at it for years and seen countless numbers of patients than one who's straight out of medical school with a lot of enthusiasm and fresh training in the latest methods.
Quote
07-20-2011 , 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostril dumbass
I am old school, played stud mostly and I agree the new school players are better.

Its true they have access to much more information than we did (the best poker book of the sixties recommended putting a submarine sandwich on the table when your opponents were hungry and you held the nuts) but main reason they are better is simply that they are younger.

my grandpa told me that when you hit your fifties your thought processes and reaction time slow down and you no longer can play your best game, at that age he switched to bridge. this was a guy who played dollar ante pot limit (dig) stud druing the depression.

unlike grandpa I did't quit entirely, stick to playing the other old geezers in the weekly 4-8 horse I barley can fade the rake. (played online 5.5 mix mtts pre bf) my old style was hyperlag, but now its just typical old nit .

one thing has remained the same there are a lot of players who are not nearly as good as they think they are who won't beat the rake.
I have this book. It mostly said to do the sandwich thing in an early pot(in home games) as a cheap incentive to get people gambling. It actually had a lot of good information in it, although a lot of it was sketchy too, (like if a new player starts playing the home game with you, and he's good, basically be a huge dick to him, and make him as uncomfortable as possible so he doesn't want to come back, etc)
Quote
07-20-2011 , 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akhanar
Sports, no, because they rely on physical skills which degenerate over time and there's nothing that can be done about that.

non-physical activities/Skills, almost every one. I would much rather have a doctor, for example, who has been at it for years and seen countless numbers of patients than one who's straight out of medical school with a lot of enthusiasm and fresh training in the latest methods.
Poker is different from being a doctor or lawyer though in that's it's more like chess or maths - the 'peak' for those activities is say 25-35 and it's possible to have very young prodigies. Apart from the fictional world of Dougie Howser MD you don't get 15 year old medics...and knowledge of medical or legal theory alone needs to be backed up by thousands of hours of practical experience (and you can't multi-table real life).

I can see that you can make a case for players with more experience of the world generally having better tilt control etc and a more realistic appraisal of their skill set.

I really only play online but I'd expect the slow pace of live play (which of course also means that the statistical information you can extract from and rely on against your opponents is a tiny fraction of what you would expect to have available if you were multi-tabling alongside him for any significant period in an online room) and the attention paid to each hand and to matters such as physical tells would be differences that an online player would have to adapt to to some extent.

Obviously in fundamental terms, if a live player didn't keep up with 2+2 poker theory and wasn't capable of something pretty close to optimal play for the available information the better internet players would have an edge over him in the long run.

That said the long run is a very very long time in live cash play and even longer in live donkaments (look at some of the guys who have made final tables in the ME over the past few years) and quoting the results of one or more recent ME's as evidence of any general rule as to whether younger or older players are better is simply LOLZ on a stats level..

Last edited by excession; 07-20-2011 at 04:07 AM.
Quote
07-20-2011 , 04:03 AM
Not sure if anyone mentioned it. But alot of the good old school players are financially secure. Guys like Minh Ly, Todd Brunson, Doyle, Eli, Barry, etc don't have as much financial motivation to play a short stack donkament hoping to luck it up and squeeze out a big payday. Alot of players just aren't as driven after a decade+ of playing and millions in the bank.
Quote
07-20-2011 , 04:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOG IS HEAD
The first time Jungleman met Ivey in person, Ivey conceded to him that Jungle was the better NL and PLO player.
That's what he also said to the rich businessmen coming into the big game.
Quote
07-20-2011 , 06:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDDtown
skeptix, It's not as black & white as what most want to believe, You are speaking of the average live player that has little experience, maybe came along in the poker boom or has played over the past 15 or 20 years recreationally & played when there was more flatting. There's always been more flatting in live play because of tells. Only since the online game came along has the game gotten super aggressive. Not because there's been an epiphany, Sklansky & some others pretty much knew the math side of the game as it was being played, however online since there are no tells, marginal equity folds made the game much more aggressive. So the math behind the game itself has changed. Some players have adapted to that change, others have not. The ones that know what's going on & have developed live skills actually love the way the game is played now. Much more opportunitys to read internet players since they are splashing around more. The games have never been better for a top world class player.


Let me say again that the average online player is probably better than the average live player, but that changes dramatically when we start speaking of the highest levels in the game,
Sklansky had some good basic math in his book Theory of Poker, but his view was pretty simplistic in my opinion. For instance he would write about equities hand vs hand instead of hand vs range or range vs range. Off course i might be wrong and he chose to not write about these concepts, but i believe the players back then were not thinking as deeply as todays players. They also didn't have tools like PokerStove or Tracking Software which helps to analyse certain situations over a big number of hands.

Also pure math skills became probably secondary at some point, because with basic poker skills you could easily beat the recreational players. The hustling part (or entertaining the rec. players) was much more important to the bottom line.
Quote
07-20-2011 , 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tme03
Age Demographics (thru 57 events):

- Average Age of Entrants: 37.33
- Average Age of Cashers: 36.31
- Average Age of Final Tables: 33.61
- Average Age of Winners: 31.10
yea this.
OP heres the proof. you are wrong.
/thread
Quote
07-20-2011 , 06:45 AM
arguing with trolls is dumb

and tapping the tank....
Quote
07-20-2011 , 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alvin the Chipmunk
Doyle Brunson said it takes 1000 hands online to equal the learning experience of 1 hand offline. I can't remember where and when he said it but he said it.

People overrate the learning they get playing 10 tables like zombies. Automatic play does not have much value. Online, no one sees how you physically react to things.
confirmed OP doesn't play poker.

This statement is so ******ed.

1 hand of live play : 5 minutes
1000 hands on internet play : 12 hours on 1 table.
Even playing 10 tables it's a bit over an hour.

You explain to me how you learn the same in 5 minutes looking at donks arrange their chip stacks and call with 5th pair on a 4flush board then making a ton of decisions, thinking, and putting people on range's and calculations in 50 spots in 1 hour.
Quote
07-20-2011 , 08:04 AM
So how OLD is the best player in the world, Phil Ivey.
34yrs, is that old or young?
Quote
07-20-2011 , 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayfox111
So how OLD is the best player in the world, Phil Ivey.
34yrs, is that old or young?
If youre 60 hes young, if youre 18 hes old ldo.
Quote
07-20-2011 , 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alvin the Chipmunk
Doyle Brunson said it takes 1000 hands online to equal the learning experience of 1 hand offline. I can't remember where and when he said it but he said it.

People overrate the learning they get playing 10 tables like zombies. Automatic play does not have much value. Online, no one sees how you physically react to things.
and LOL at this ******ed appeal to authority. DOYLE SAID IT SO ITS TRUE
Quote
07-20-2011 , 08:24 AM
delusional bustos ITT
hasn't it been proven that 95% of online players are losing???
phil ivey is "old", "old-school" and is a "live player", and he has been raping you all live AND online for years now

get over yourselves
Quote
07-20-2011 , 08:27 AM
old people are great at poker. live pros are great
Quote

      
m