I don't get this take at all. It's like when the inner circle of top tournament pros discuss the game, they forget that such a thing as a home game even exists. There's only tens of millions of us playing in them in the U.S. alone. There are hundreds of thousands of people making a considerable income this way, and Chris Ferguson and the other "successful few" never gets a shot at it.

Greenstein and others talk like to be a successful pro you have to play at the highest levels, against the top/most well known players, and prove there that you can survive the action. There's lots of successful rock climbers who didn't make their bones with Sir Edmund Hillary on Mount Everest.

I personally think that the main obsticales w/ age are opportunity cost and your preferance for risk. Older people tend to have a lot more responsibilites; family, jobs, etc... So if you are an amatuer w/ all these other things going on in your life, it will be much harder for you to completely emerse yourself in poker. Like he says in his book that many of the top professionals are not well educated. Not because they are not smart, but because the didn't have the same opportunites, as a corollary of this many well educated have demanding jobs, which do not afford them sufficient time to play and learn poker...

d'

That's a point you could take from what I wrote, but not the actual point I was making.

When you're older you have more demands on your time. Work, commute to and from, household responsibilities, time with my family, I'm lucky if I can spend an hour or two playing poker 3-4 times a week.

If I choose to live a balanced life, then that's that. Poker is my hobby, I show a small profit at middle stakes and I remain a punter for the rest of my life. If I want to improve my game, crush the stakes I'm currently playing and ever move up to higher stakes, then I'm going to have to invest more time into poker. And to spend more time than an hour or two playing poker 3-4 times a week on poker, one or more of those other things has to float.

Now with shooting, I wasn't willing to let my family time and household responsibilities float. I was willing to accept a balanced life and the unexceptional results that life produced at the range.

With poker, I have a desire to excel. Personally, I am prepared to accept the cost, pay the price that exceptional results requires. However, as an adult with adult responsibilities I am also aware that my decisions effect other people.

My family members aren't quite ready to tolerate my prolonged absence nor are they ready to shoulder my share of the household responsibilities. Again, as a responsible adult I understand and respect their choices. Just like they understand that their choices are keeping me from an achievement that I may well be capable of.

At this point in out lives, we'll never know will we?

So yes, you can say that time x effort x talent = results. But as you get older you find that each of those factors is a far more nebulous variable that you first imagined.

that's what i was thinking too........ although barry has clarified that he considers probably late teens and early twenties as key time. basically someone who can play poker 15 hours a day as their job and/or summer job from school....

makes more sense with that perspective..

poker is not that hard. barry is trying to prop himself up.

Yeah, but the time period that it takes to get in 1million hands of poker has been quite compressed since online poker. The learning curve as a function of time is much reduced. Grinding 15 hours at a live table may have been the only way at one point, but no longer.

+EV

yes, but you can't become an elite player playing 15 hours a week online, at least i don't think so...... i think barry's point is that you really need the young exposure like a chessmaster, although the ages are different and chessmaster is alot more difficult than top poker pro (to think that a huge % of the best chess players have been from only one country).

but what age did barry take up poker??

Actually, the few people who play both at the highest levels (Dan Harrington, Bob Ciaffone, a few others) all agree that poker is more difficult than chess.

And according to his book Barry began to play poker seriously in his teens.

i don't agree...... how many elite chess players has the united states even had?..... there are entire countries (like canada) that have never had an elite player, but we have elite poker players like negreanu, booth, smith etc.... do you really those guys are anywhere near comparable to chessmasters??

also, barry had fulltime job.... i don't think playing backrooms against doctors/dentists/etc. is play that qualifies as learning to become poker grandmaster.

phydaux, sorry if that sounds a little harsh.... very interested in subject, but strapped/stressed for time.

Bobby hoff started after the age of 25

I think barry is talking all the games not just holdem

Yeah but this is offset by loads of people who can't beat these stakes, which easily make up the majority of the player pool. Contrast that to a bachelor's degree, which I don't think is that difficult to get, where you could reasonably expect to become employed and "profitable" over time.

I'm not suggesting that you can't make a good hourly rate with poker. I am suggesting that people who are capable of doing that could make a better overall return elsewhere with the same effort, and with a lot of other benefits and less headaches. And, really, the online poker landscape isn't the most secure thing either.

Obviously, anyone with proper bankroll, time, energy, patience, dedication, and average or above intelligence can make a go at pro. That's a whole lot of stuff for a middle aged person with family and financial responsibilities.

The kids and young twenty-somethings have a lot going for them, for now. But, how many of them are still going to enjoy the game later? The internet grind has got to be a horrible way to make a buck, unless you become fortunate enough to run your roll up for the very highest buy ins. The live tourney circuit isn't really a place for the father of 2. And the peaked interest has grown the fields so high, you're really looking at a crap shoot. You could overcome the varience by playing even more and consequently, taking even more time away from your family.

I think it takes a very special person with special circumstances too want to pursue this as a profession. Although, professional actually just means making an income, so many will do fine at smaller stakes and smaller events, but not follow the "superstar" path.

I dream of playing pro. I've a lot more to learn. Nothing wrong with dreaming, but balance your life and recognize that your decisions affect all of those around you as well. Single? 22 yearls old? Go for it. much older and you really have a lot to think about.

I have a feeling that people like Byron Jacobs, Curtains and many others will disagree here

No worries mate. I don't pretend to be anything other than a punter at poker, and despite my best efforts I'm absolutly hopeless at chess. I've just heard quotes attributed to guys like Dan & Bob that have said they consider poker more difficult than chess. That whole "incomplete information" thing.

Or they could just play a couple of hours in the evening and earn the same or more than the eight hours at their regular job pays them without giving up the job.

Having started playing poker in my forties, there are def some qualities that younger players have that I wish I had, but there are qualities that I have such as patience and discipline that I think some younger players have a hard time learning and developing.

Though I dont agree with the comment, I think the main reason why it would be tougher to achieve poker greatness at an older age is more to do with the likely personal circumstances. Im 25 at the moment, soon to be finishing uni, and if I wanted to, could happily grind poker for a couple of years. I have no wife, kids, debt, etc, to worry about so money doesnt really mean much to me. An 18 year old would be even more likely to have this mentality, but most players who start at the age of 40+ are likely to have dependants and a career so they cant just give up their jobs to focus on maybe becoming a top poker player.

Anyone of above average intelligence should be able to make a decent wage playing poker compared to most working people, but my the age of 40-50 many people of an above average intelligence have already worked hard to get to a position they are in, in their chosen career. At 18-25, compared to the money you can make elsewhere, for the majority of people, poker is not that bad an idea. This to me is far more important that abilty to learn, etc.

Lastly, if you read stories about many of the 'elite' players, it seems to be sheer determination to succeed at the highest level that seperates them for the good but lesser players, rather than just genius. The mentality many of these guys have- to go bust many times only to learn from it and improve, or even just to up and leave your home to move to vegas- is quite special. I, along with most semi-pro players, just dont have this attitude. Regarding age, it is far more typical you are likely to have this hung ho attitude when you are younger rather than older.

They are different kinds of hard. Chess players spend a lot of time memorizing opening theory. Someone in Chess Life once wrote that the amount of study required to be a GM is probably more than for a college degree.

Now in poker we study too. But we don't often have to commit to a daily regimen of going over poker hands.

I'm surprised Joe Sebok's name hasn't come up. Seems odd considering anything I've read alluded to the fact that he got into poker (seriously, anyway) relatively late (late 20's), after college and various jobs didn't work out and was successful early on.

I know BG is his dad/mentor, but I find the cardplayer article comments funny in this regard...

Wow, I didn't expect to get so many responses to this thread - let alone from BG himself - but the responses are at least a bit more encouraging. I'm only 25 myself and, while not really satisfied with my abilities (is anyone really?), when I realize I've only been playing for 2-3 years or so, my success (at least in tournaments, cash needs some work) doesn't seem so bad.

I suppose hoping for/expecting more success at midstakes cash games and tournaments is at least a somewhat reasonable expectation considering the time, effort and $$ I'm willing to put into it. Hopefully it works out.....haha

Been following this discussion and this is the same thought I keep having. The whole responsibilities and tolerance of (or ability to take) risks also figures into it. But if a young person and a older person both have equal drive, risk tolerance, and time the differences from age cut both ways.

I suspect a younger player is more likely to "show no fear" for example. He is also more likely to still be in a learning mode (something some older folks no longer are). But I suspect an older player is likely to deal better with the mental and emotional part of the game due to life experience. These are obviously general statements with frequent exceptions (I think I"m an exception to the learning mode comment for example) but I think generally true.

I think Barry's advice is practical. He's said before that age does slow your mind (which is the biggest asset as a poker player), and since he's been getting older, he's admired people like Doyle Brunson who can still play excellently (and I guess a lot of that is due to a long career of experience)

Also, at the older age, I assume most people's financial stability has settled, so if you already have a lot of money, you don't need to play professionally for it (that's not to say you can't play for fun), and if you don't have a lot of money, you shouldn't risk it. Young people who lose a lot of money in poker have more time to bounce back in life from it.

Total agreement here. I'm 45 and 'almost' never tilt, but as hard as I try, I just can't execute the same level of aggression that the younger players have. I am aggresive, just no where near the same level.

Having said that, when I play live, I feel I have a much better feel for the game than the young players. Most (that I've encountered) don't have that same level fearlessness when you can look them in the face. That's a matter of life experience instead of the anonymity of the internet (I think).

Although I'm not sure how true this is of me I think you're right that an older player brings more to the table in a live game due to life experience. The way I see it (and reading between the lines you seem to be implying the same) an older player is more likely to intuitively be able to read the other players ("I just thought he seemed weak" or "I could tell he didn't want a call").

I suppose the point of Barry's comment (especially considered with his post in this thread) is that it would be tough to get to the absolute pinnacle of the game if you didn't start playing seriously no later than your early 20s. Although I think there is a lot of truth to this it is because reaching the pinnacle of any field can often take a lot of time and effort. For all the reasons discussed a younger person will often be in a better position to be able to take the risks and make the sacrifices in other areas of his life during the first part of this climb.

However I think there are (potentially) a few examples of pros who might be examples of what can (or has) been achieved by a late starter. I'm not extremely familiar with any of these so I may be way off or missing a key part of their history, but I'll throw the names out there and will no doubt have any flaws in my thinking pointed out.

Although I know he played with his friends I don't believe Phil Gordon started playing the game with serious intent until after he "retired early" from (IIRC) a computer company with lots of free time and money. I believe he was in his late 20s or early 30s.

Michael Craig, Roy Winston (a Full Tilt Pro, for what difference that makes), and Greg Raymer all had successful (and demanding) careers before coming to their poker careers in middle age (I'm actually not sure how old Raymer is - definitely younger than the other two and probably not as good of an example). None of these except possibly Raymer can be considered at the pinnacle of the game. I believe they all played recreationally before approaching the game more seriously. But each, I believe, has had a reasonable level of success. (I should point out that Michael Craig, although a Full Tilt pro because of his writing, did make 2 or 3 final tables at the WSOP last year.)

allright..

"Most chess grandmasters were probably well over the expert level when they were 14. Anyone would laugh at the idea that someone who learned chess at 18 or 19 could ever become a grandmaster. "

listen , chess is not even comparable for the amount it takes to become at least a master strengh if u compare it to poker.

phydaux, just show me where d is sayig chess is esier than poker.
Cause if its true, think probably mr. harrington been misquoted...

Has for mr grenstein, disagree.

One comparison can make is, poker like in chess, its the ammunt of experience and study u achieve greatness.
Yu, yogner its easier to asimilate knowledge but it doesnt mean it aint possible, just longer and a bit harder.
Like chess if u lay blitz(5 min games), the amountof experience is attain easier and so u learn a lot faster by playing blitz up to a certain level.After u eed to study again,etc..
Poker, like chess, has the same opportunaty.Instead of blitz, u can multi table a lot and the experienceaccumulate a ot faster.

But this is where the comparison stop. Chess take a hell of a lot more of brain power to suceed than poker a damn hell lot more.

Moreover, ua succeed in poker A BIT more than i chess because of the short term luck factor.
in chess no luck ca save u win and make u win a tourney