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.

Whats the reason these young guys dominate old guys when they play against each other?

The cards being dealt randomly does not mean that there will be no variance.

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.

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 ******

you should read Doyle's twitter and you'll find that most of what he says is similarly idiotic.

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

No, you couldn't.

my god some of the posts itt (EDDtown/big meech) make me wanna jump off a bridge

lol awesome

omg you guys stop feeding this troll

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.

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)

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..

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.

That's what he also said to the rich businessmen coming into the big 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.

yea this.
OP heres the proof. you are wrong.
/thread

arguing with trolls is dumb

and tapping the tank....

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.

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.

and LOL at this ******ed appeal to authority. DOYLE SAID IT SO ITS TRUE

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

old people are great at poker. live pros are great