"I can three bet. I can four bet. I'm a new style poker player." yeah ,yeah, yeah.

I know .Let's have a spelling contest.

the #1 reason for this is sample bias. older people have more money. there are simply far more 50-year-old poker players who have the spare money to enter WSOP tournaments than there are 24-year-old poker players. this is true despite there being a lot more poker players age 24 than age 50. so of course the older players are going to be worse on average. their age bracket contains a ton more bad players because they didn't have to win their entry money from poker or get sponsorship.

#2 is physical and mental stamina. this is frankly hard for 24-year-olds to comprehend. however, it is far, far more difficult for a 50-year-old to play well for 10 levels a day for three days than it is for a 24-year-old.

the effect of relative skill between pros of different ages is small compared to #1, and I suspect #2 is more important among the pro players than age.

it so obvious, coz old people dont have much time playing poker, they spend most of their time at a Doctor's office for heart ailment, athritis, erictile dysfunction and hemorroids whereas the young punks are out there grinding, so definitely old school are going to be dominated.

#2 is physical and mental stamina. this is frankly hard for 24-year-olds to comprehend. however, it is far, far more difficult for a 50-year-old to play well for 10 levels a day for three days than it is for a 24-year-old.



Nailed it. As a 55-year old, playing 10 hours a day is very, very tough. I rarely eat dinner, preferring to nap and swim; I exercise daily, and I still find it tough to keep up with the 24-year olds who went to a strip club until 4 a.m. the previous night! I am really glad they only play 10 levels/day, gives me a fighting chance. In the old days they played up to 24 hours straight in the non-ME bracelet events.

Most of the old school players are awful at poker, plus there are less of them.

That's why.

Slowrolling is not a legitimate psychological play. It's a disrespectful move at the end of a hand. "2 pair" isn't a problem with me. It's just when I announce that I have "Aces" and they announce "2 pair" with the pair on board, they somehow think that they've won.

What's interesting is that poker isnt a physical sport like football where the players are better now then they were then.

There is def an intellectual prime age when you go past it as you get older you can't think as quickly.

Saying that, what do newer players do that older players don't? There's always the same 3 options in a given situation: fold, call/check, bet/raise. An old school player must have faced a 4 bet thousands of times in live games.

Also what about in 50 years time when Durrrs in his 70's? If he's still alive is he going to be getting owned by some 21 year old kid?

The issue isn't thinking through a hand. It's maintaining concentration and not making a dumb mistake because you're exhausted. Thinking through hands is easy once you practice it. The hard part is estimating ranges accurately and, for live play, getting good physical reads. This becomes harder if you have more difficulty concentrating.

Many 24-year-olds cannot understand this. It's too far out of their experience. But think of it like this: imagine you had to carry a 25-lb pack wherever you went, but your body could not adjust to it (by becoming stronger, etc). Now walking up three flights of stairs is still easy, but you huff a little bit. It's the same with playing cards for 10 hours in a 12.5 hour period. Any given step you can hop up just fine, but the long haul wears you down.

Still, though, the real reason young people do better at the WSOP is because old people are rich and can enter WSOP tournaments even if they suck at poker.

how in the world can you believe that when it sounds like you weren't even playing the game back in the 70s or 80s? you say it's "not the case" but have no idea because in all likelihood you weren't there to know either way. you're guessing, just as older players guess that younger players aren't doing anything new these days. they just have different names for the same type of tactics the older players used.

I'm pretty sure he also said he doesn't know what EV means. I guess you believe that too?

Shame on you Haseeb.

I am 49 drinking, smoking, no sleeping much, my only hope is heart attack in deep sleep.

That's one contest the old school guys would legitimately dominate.

The first point is really good...
And basically makes WSOP demographic stats irrelevant.

Look, I make 1000 trades/day...
It's like multi-tabling 4-8 tables for 8 hours/day...
And I'm in Hellmuth's age range...
And I've NEVER been better, top of my game...
The "age decline" argument is for degens...
Booze/drugs/cigs will make you feel "old" at 25.

The idea that Dwan has an "age advantage"...
Over Phil Hellmuth at WSOP is ludicrous...
As long as they are both stay in good shape.

How did playing 50 events work out for Dwan?

And this entire discussion...
Is about 25 yo Top 1% geniuses...
Versus 50 yo Top 1% geniuses...
The rest of the field is cannon fodder.

Trust me...
Top 1% geniuses lose nothing at age 50...
Unless they've spent 30 years abusing their body.

Because there are more of them....at least 4-1....

I'm assuming the above quote is in response to the avg. entrants being 37yrs old, avg. cash 36yrs, average final table 33yrs, average winner 31yrs. Using averages is more useful in this situation not because of any one statistic, but because of the smooth progression we see from entrants to cashes to final tables to winners. The average age continually declines. Median probably would as well.

However, I do agree with a post made later in this thread which states that older people have more disposable income, so the likelihood of a 40yr+ fishy player deciding to enter on a whim and splash around is much higher than a 25yr old doing the same thing. It does create a bias.

That said, this thread should have ended with pineapple888's post.

Anyone else see the irony in this statement? LOL.

You Donkey, Jungleman is infact better at NLHE than Ivey.

Shame on you.

This is an incredibly stupid statement, even by your standards.