Quote:
Originally Posted by keanosdog
i've played 150,000 + plus hands just playing maybe an average of ten hours a week.
how long would that have taken in the pre-computer age?
But Doyle and company had certainly played more hands than their opponents from whom they won the most money. If Doyle (or someone else) could get in a room with a rich fish he could win huge -- his edge over his opponent was immense. You may have played 150k+ but you don't even have an edge over many of the people you will play. You wouldn't have an edge over me and I suck.
If you had a time machine then maybe your 150k+ would help a lot -- unfortunately you live in a time when 150k+ isn't even a lot of hands. There is really no point in saying "it's more than the old school played in 10 years" (or whatever) because you aren't playing them then you're playing us now.
As for respect, I'd much rather read the life story of a road gambler than that of someone who sat home for ten years playing 20+ tables at once. Yes, technically the new school may "know more" but only in relation to another era. They don't know much more than each other and that's the whole point of the game -- to exploit an edge.
I think the post earlier by Gibson sums it up for me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyLC
Howard even said that the constant money from business makes it difficult to fully concentrate at the table. He is always thinking about business decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GibsonLP33stl
Cop out...
I always thought the point of playing poker was to win money. If I gave it any secondary value it would be the social aspect (live play only obviously). Third would be interest in game theory. Therefore, if, like many of the FTP guys, I was making more money elsewhere, that would take priority. It wouldn't be a cop out as the whole point was making money. I would have never deviated from my original goal.