Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

Playing devil's advocate here, the online game is dominated by midstack poker where analysis and early street decision making dominates the play. Brandon was pretty clear that the online players have the strongest skills in these areas right now. Saying that these two players aren't winning online players doesn't discredit his argument at all. It is his argument.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, the general public may view the WSOP main event as the Wimbledon of poker, but any real poker player knows that it's just the powerball of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs online)
 

This is a great post, but I think it's too pessimistic.

Back when I learned the game in the 60's, it was conventional wisdom that a top player had to learn in his pre-teen or early teen years, and drop out of school to focus enough time on the game. That fits with the brain work that says you need to fix those analytic skills early; before your brain performance starts to erode after 19.

That meant there was a very small pool of potential top players. You had to be born in a place with good poker players, be enough of a geek to master the analysis and focus on the theory, be introspective enough to know yourself and shy enough to observe other people closely; and yet have the nerve to walk into an illegal backroom game populated by tough-looking adult strangers, with the intention of walking out again with their money.

Today, anyone in the world with an Internet connection can practice top poker 24/7, with minimal risk. That's a million-fold increase in potential top players, which is the main reason I think we'll see vast improvement in play. On-line players may not get the people-reading or life management skills on-line, but that's the stuff adults are better at anyway, they can learn it in their 20's.

The reason I'm more optimistic is I don't think poker destroys your brain, I think it hones it, like a steel with a knife. Of course, if you keep honing a blade, you grind it away; so if you play poker only to get better at poker, you do wind up in bad shape.

But poker can shape your brain for tough, creative risk-taking in any field. The intensity Brandon mentions; the hormones and sleep deprivation at ages when your neurons are plastic; these things change your brain. All poker, all the time, is a drug addict's life. All poker, some of the time, and some poker, all of the time, is a source of super powers.

The biggest reason we don't have a Kasparov or Federer of poker is you can do other things with your poker skills. Chess ability is not much good outside the game, you can be crazy and be a great chess player (but not a good poker player). Tennis skills haven't been useful since the neolithic age. So if you're great at one of those games, you stick with it. The most successful people in both sports, in terms of money, respect and life success, are not the best players, but some good players with outside talents who write or coach or manage or produce or whatever.

Traditionally, most of the best poker players went off to do other things. They focused on poker for a few key years, then moved on. They still played enough to be very good, and accumulated experience does count for something, but they didn't do the constant practice and refinement necessary in chess or tennis.

It's true that the rewards for being the best poker player have gone up. A top tournament player is a celebrity and can make a nice living. But I don't think people who want to be celebrities and make nice livings have the fire to be great at anything. The quality of play will go up a lot, but the potential best players will never devote the necessary time and discipline to reach the level of mastery possible in other pursuits.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well, for six months, Viffer had a policy of never bluffing Kenny. That is, if he bet big on the river against Kenny, he was never bluffing. For him, that was optimal... if Kenny knows when you're bluffing, your optimal bluffing percentage is 0. Something like that just makes no sense in the context of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

having any percentage of a certain play at 0 can not be anything close to optimal no matter what

[/ QUOTE ]
If your cards are face up (essentially what hes saying) yes it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

but the cards arent face up...especially after a few months of kenny knowing he wont bluff him

[/ QUOTE ]

If Kenny always knows when your bluffing optimal bluffing percentage is 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way your bluffing % can be zero is if you only bet when you have the nuts - doesn't that present a few problems?

[/ QUOTE ]

we can maybe make some thin value bets with the 2nd nuts occasionally

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs online)
 

Aaron,

Best post Ive read in a long long time

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

Top 5 article of the year.

heres a comment, this pretty much certifies that there will never be a poker boom to the same extent as it ever was.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
Top 5 article of the year.

heres a comment, this pretty much certifies that there will never be a poker boom to the same extent as it ever was.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why do you say that, based on anything to do with this thread?

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
The story of my poker life in 07 is that I was a big loser online, but I was the biggest or second biggest winner in live poker from May-August. On the whole, that has left me pretty flush.

I am not claiming you aren't a very solid player here. But the reality is, the amount of live hands you played in the three months of summer is probably comparable to the amount of hands an online grinder can put in within a week or two. That being said, it does mean that the variance involved with your summer rush is pretty high, which implies that, while it can prove you to be a solid player, it really can't show anything more than that. A player online who has a big 20k hands would be laughed at if he took from those stats too much.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

Interesting post but has some academic pesssimistic point of view
I know taht now at 30 my intellect and learning ability is much greater now than it was at 19
and i expect it to continue growing i am sure there are many others who agree

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps someone will come along in poker and make our current beliefs about maximum win rates, ROI and variance look naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's already here, he's called themetetron

[/ QUOTE ]

A++

[/ QUOTE ]
i guess there aren't enough MSNLers reading nvg. A+ indeed

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
Very nice post Brandon. Unfortunately as a 19-year-old I am distracted from completely mastering the game by things such as college girls and alcohol, but I try my best [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

Brandon you are obviously a well educated guy with a great understanding of both poker and the sort of life skills required to succeed.

This is not a critisicm I just cant comprehend how someone with your level of intelligence can lose more than 700k playing high stakes pot limit omaha this year online. Do you put it down to running bad?

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, for six months, Viffer had a policy of never bluffing Kenny. That is, if he bet big on the river against Kenny, he was never bluffing. For him, that was optimal... if Kenny knows when you're bluffing, your optimal bluffing percentage is 0. Something like that just makes no sense in the context of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain this, as it makes no sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

Has anyone ever considered that comparing online poker to live poker is like comparing marathon runners to sprinters. IMO they are two different games of the same genera just like marathon or long distance running is a different sport from 100 or 200 meter dash, but part of the genera of track.
No one wonders which runner is best when comparing long distance runners to short distance runners, but everyone wonders if online or live poker players are better. IMO some are better at live and some better at online.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs online)
 

Pseudo-science! I love it. Seriously, to take a few poorly understood scientific factoids and try to extrapolate anything serous out of it with regards to poker is not particularly meaningful. More a case of garbage in, garbage out. Although it did make for an interesting read, so not entirely a wasted effort.

As to the thought that we may see a Kasparof of poker, or perhaps a tiger woods, or federer, it isn't very likely. The main problem is that the edge in poker is simply too small. Say a player came along who was a 10% better player than the next best player in the world. That's a massive improvement, and probably unrealistic. But even so, that doesn't directly translate to 10% better results. That increase in skill probably translates to a fraction of a percent increase in results over the competition. And that's simply not enough to give us a recognizable kasparov or Federer.

Also, if the player is so much better, isn't it possible that his game selection skills are better as well? That he doesn't need the ego stroking from playing the best and instead plays in the most profitable games? And thus rarely, if ever, playing the best (albeit inferior to him) players in the world, we would never recognize him as the best player?

Also, given that poker is a gambling game, it is highly unlikely you'll see large numbers of kids pushed into it, and learning and breathing poker from the time they're five as you do in sports and even chess. So you just aren't going to get that kind of development.

Finally a querry. Is the player that Brandon refers to, who plans to quit when a crop of better players comes along really making a wise choice? At the end of the day, as long as there are fish in the pool, poker doesn't require you to be the best. Unlike tennis, or golf, or whatever, in order to be wildly successful, you do not have to face off against the top players in the world...

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]


Brandon you are obviously a well educated guy with a great understanding of both poker and the sort of life skills required to succeed.

This is not a critisicm I just cant comprehend how someone with your level of intelligence can lose more than 700k playing high stakes pot limit omaha this year online. Do you put it down to running bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is definitely not a question a well educated guy with great understanding of both poker and life skills would ask.

Pretty silly.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Brandon you are obviously a well educated guy with a great understanding of both poker and the sort of life skills required to succeed.

This is not a critisicm I just cant comprehend how someone with your level of intelligence can lose more than 700k playing high stakes pot limit omaha this year online. Do you put it down to running bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is definitely not a question a well educated guy with great understanding of both poker and life skills would ask.

Pretty silly.

[/ QUOTE ]


I missed his post in this thread before I asked it where he answers why he has had bad results online.

However I dont see how this can be considered a bad question given the tone of his article.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

Because anyone asking it clearly doesn’t understand the least bit about poker, gambling or any risk related endeavor. It is not a terrible question but the way in which you phrased the question makes you look ignorant and uneducated about poker. It basically reads, “ZOMG YOU LOST 700k YOU MUST SUCK. WHY DIDN’T YOU QUIT SOONER?”

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]

Because anyone asking it clearly doesn’t understand the least bit about poker, gambling or any risk related endeavor. It is not a terrible question but the way in which you phrased the question makes you look ignorant and uneducated about poker. It basically reads, “ZOMG YOU LOST 700k YOU MUST SUCK. WHY DIDN’T YOU QUIT SOONER?”


[/ QUOTE ]


Ok perhaps the wordage was wrong....


Was his own experiences that led him to understand better what the difference is between the great online players psyche versus a live mentality and what different elements it takes to get to these levels. I am curious...

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs online)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pseudo-science! I love it. Seriously, to take a few poorly understood scientific factoids and try to extrapolate anything serous out of it with regards to poker is not particularly meaningful. More a case of garbage in, garbage out. Although it did make for an interesting read, so not entirely a wasted effort.

As to the thought that we may see a Kasparof of poker, or perhaps a tiger woods, or federer, it isn't very likely. The main problem is that the edge in poker is simply too small. Say a player came along who was a 10% better player than the next best player in the world. That's a massive improvement, and probably unrealistic. But even so, that doesn't directly translate to 10% better results. That increase in skill probably translates to a fraction of a percent increase in results over the competition. And that's simply not enough to give us a recognizable kasparov or Federer.

Also, if the player is so much better, isn't it possible that his game selection skills are better as well? That he doesn't need the ego stroking from playing the best and instead plays in the most profitable games? And thus rarely, if ever, playing the best (albeit inferior to him) players in the world, we would never recognize him as the best player?

Also, given that poker is a gambling game, it is highly unlikely you'll see large numbers of kids pushed into it, and learning and breathing poker from the time they're five as you do in sports and even chess. So you just aren't going to get that kind of development.

Finally a querry. Is the player that Brandon refers to, who plans to quit when a crop of better players comes along really making a wise choice? At the end of the day, as long as there are fish in the pool, poker doesn't require you to be the best. Unlike tennis, or golf, or whatever, in order to be wildly successful, you do not have to face off against the top players in the world...

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

WOW, you actually wrote something worth reading for once.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs online)
 

I really hope no one misses this post.

I think it more accurately describes some of the "pseudo-science" Brian was trying to put together in the OP. I believe Aaron has a Ph.D in math or some related field and always answers the very tough probability theory questions in the probability forum with great detail and accuracy.


[ QUOTE ]
This is a great post, but I think it's too pessimistic.

Back when I learned the game in the 60's, it was conventional wisdom that a top player had to learn in his pre-teen or early teen years, and drop out of school to focus enough time on the game. That fits with the brain work that says you need to fix those analytic skills early; before your brain performance starts to erode after 19.

That meant there was a very small pool of potential top players. You had to be born in a place with good poker players, be enough of a geek to master the analysis and focus on the theory, be introspective enough to know yourself and shy enough to observe other people closely; and yet have the nerve to walk into an illegal backroom game populated by tough-looking adult strangers, with the intention of walking out again with their money.

Today, anyone in the world with an Internet connection can practice top poker 24/7, with minimal risk. That's a million-fold increase in potential top players, which is the main reason I think we'll see vast improvement in play. On-line players may not get the people-reading or life management skills on-line, but that's the stuff adults are better at anyway, they can learn it in their 20's.

The reason I'm more optimistic is I don't think poker destroys your brain, I think it hones it, like a steel with a knife. Of course, if you keep honing a blade, you grind it away; so if you play poker only to get better at poker, you do wind up in bad shape.

But poker can shape your brain for tough, creative risk-taking in any field. The intensity Brandon mentions; the hormones and sleep deprivation at ages when your neurons are plastic; these things change your brain. All poker, all the time, is a drug addict's life. All poker, some of the time, and some poker, all of the time, is a source of super powers.

The biggest reason we don't have a Kasparov or Federer of poker is you can do other things with your poker skills. Chess ability is not much good outside the game, you can be crazy and be a great chess player (but not a good poker player). Tennis skills haven't been useful since the neolithic age. So if you're great at one of those games, you stick with it. The most successful people in both sports, in terms of money, respect and life success, are not the best players, but some good players with outside talents who write or coach or manage or produce or whatever.

Traditionally, most of the best poker players went off to do other things. They focused on poker for a few key years, then moved on. They still played enough to be very good, and accumulated experience does count for something, but they didn't do the constant practice and refinement necessary in chess or tennis.

It's true that the rewards for being the best poker player have gone up. A top tournament player is a celebrity and can make a nice living. But I don't think people who want to be celebrities and make nice livings have the fire to be great at anything. The quality of play will go up a lot, but the potential best players will never devote the necessary time and discipline to reach the level of mastery possible in other pursuits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because anyone asking it clearly doesn’t understand the least bit about poker, gambling or any risk related endeavor. It is not a terrible question but the way in which you phrased the question makes you look ignorant and uneducated about poker. It basically reads, “ZOMG YOU LOST 700k YOU MUST SUCK. WHY DIDN’T YOU QUIT SOONER?”


[/ QUOTE ]


Ok perhaps the wordage was wrong....


Was his own experiences that led him to understand better what the difference is between the great online players psyche versus a live mentality and what different elements it takes to get to these levels. I am curious...

[/ QUOTE ]

u do realize, that more than a few of the 'really super sick great winners zomg they are the best' people have lost 700k in a day online right?

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well, for six months, Viffer had a policy of never bluffing Kenny. That is, if he bet big on the river against Kenny, he was never bluffing. For him, that was optimal... if Kenny knows when you're bluffing, your optimal bluffing percentage is 0. Something like that just makes no sense in the context of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
having any percentage of a certain play at 0 can not be anything close to optimal no matter what

[/ QUOTE ]
If your cards are face up (essentially what hes saying) yes it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
but the cards arent face up...especially after a few months of kenny knowing he wont bluff him

[/ QUOTE ]
If Kenny always knows when your bluffing optimal bluffing percentage is 0.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless your hopeless bluffs get him to call enough of your valuebets.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]

Let me take a giant leap and compare skill levels across two entirely different games, poker and chess. It seems to me that in poker, no one has ever reached the level of mastery reached by the top chess players. The level of skill that Gary Kasparov in his prime exhibited on a chess table has never been matched by anyone on the green felt. This is open to argument, but I believe it to be obviously true and I think there is a deep reason for it. Poker wears people down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked everything you wrote but this. Poker is not very good at distinguishing between people of similar levels of skill. Chess is VERY good at this, I think I would have a much better chance at playing Antonius heads up for like a year and being up then a chess player beating somebody a thousand points higher in a tournament. I don't see how anybody could ever separate themselves so much from all the other poker players.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs online)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pseudo-science! I love it. Seriously, to take a few poorly understood scientific factoids and try to extrapolate anything serous out of it with regards to poker is not particularly meaningful. More a case of garbage in, garbage out. Although it did make for an interesting read, so not entirely a wasted effort.

As to the thought that we may see a Kasparof of poker, or perhaps a tiger woods, or federer, it isn't very likely. The main problem is that the edge in poker is simply too small. Say a player came along who was a 10% better player than the next best player in the world. That's a massive improvement, and probably unrealistic. But even so, that doesn't directly translate to 10% better results. That increase in skill probably translates to a fraction of a percent increase in results over the competition. And that's simply not enough to give us a recognizable kasparov or Federer.

Also, if the player is so much better, isn't it possible that his game selection skills are better as well? That he doesn't need the ego stroking from playing the best and instead plays in the most profitable games? And thus rarely, if ever, playing the best (albeit inferior to him) players in the world, we would never recognize him as the best player?

Also, given that poker is a gambling game, it is highly unlikely you'll see large numbers of kids pushed into it, and learning and breathing poker from the time they're five as you do in sports and even chess. So you just aren't going to get that kind of development.

Finally a querry. Is the player that Brandon refers to, who plans to quit when a crop of better players comes along really making a wise choice? At the end of the day, as long as there are fish in the pool, poker doesn't require you to be the best. Unlike tennis, or golf, or whatever, in order to be wildly successful, you do not have to face off against the top players in the world...

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very excellent.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
The story of my poker life in 07 is that I was a big loser online, but I was the biggest or second biggest winner in live poker from May-August. On the whole, that has left me pretty flush.


[/ QUOTE ]

wait i dont understand, since the live games are so much tougher than the online games, i would've thought that you'd be slaughtering all the online games in your hotel room, and then losing at all those super-tough live games because "it was unrealistic to think i could beat those games while playing those online games"

BULL-SH I T

what a joke for these guys like brandon and kenny to claim they're at a diff level when they cant even beat these guys. how do you have the balls to do that?
and the best part is you guys cant lie about your results like all the live players do where nobody can prove anything, cuz online DB's are tracking everything; its all documented.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

Has Brandon ever claimed those things? Live being tougher?
I mean similar claims to the those Kenny Tran made.

And also hasn't BA been a well known online player for a number of years?

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

brandon never claimed to be one of the best NL players in the world, or to be better than the top NL guys online. dunno why you guys are lumping him in with 'sick call' kenny.


there is, however, a big big difference between 'being the best' and 'making monies'

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

durr, bldswttrs et. al would dissect kenny tran in any nl game.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting post but has some academic pesssimistic point of view
I know taht now at 30 my intellect and learning ability is much greater now than it was at 19
and i expect it to continue growing i am sure there are many others who agree

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey AKoffsuit, I'm in my early 20s and scared of losing my mental acuity. In your opinion what are some reasons to why people lose that clarity, and how is your life, personality or circumstance different that you continue to improve? Thanks!

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
brandon never claimed to be one of the best NL players in the world, or to be better than the top NL guys online. dunno why you guys are lumping him in with 'sick call' kenny.


there is, however, a big big difference between 'being the best' and 'making monies'

[/ QUOTE ]

just agreeing with ya Crunk and wanted to point out what Brandon has that a lot of the "internet players" will never understand, Charisma and personality enough to get invited as a winning player into the games when there is a great spot or two in it and only so many seats to be had.

Theres got to be a reason Brandon is down so much online and still has a lot of money right.?

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

i am surprised at the amount of love shown to this article.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

One plausible scenario of many. But one more book sold.. looking forward to reading it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

It's worth noting that most or all of the players in the Big Game have played on FT at some point, and only two of these players are up, as far as I know (Phil Ivey and PA). I'm not lumping myself in the same category as these players by any stretch, I'm just noting that live and online are very different. Obviously, the skill sets in live vs online are different. I speculate that another key factor is that it's hard to conduct your life in such a way that you are set up for success in both live and online play. The live winner is ultra-flexible in his lifestyle, always willing to travel or stay up late to get in/stay in the best games. The online winner needs to live a more structured life. -Brandon

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

i have not read every reply so sorry if this has been mentioned, but a big reason why there is no garry kasparov in poker is because the financial rewards are much bigger in poker than they are in chess. i have no idea how much money kasparov made just before his prime, but i doubt it was anywhere near what ivey made. the third or fourth best chess player in the world has huge financial incentives to become the best. the poker player has no such motivation.

i can easily see a poker player with all the tools (such as emotional control and world class people-reading skills) reach the top of the field, and then fade back, having won more than enough money to live off of. to reach kasparov-level at poker, someone would have to be almost maniacal about either being the greatest ever, or winning an absurd amount of money that they'll never be able to spend. this would be an irrational person, but by definition, a kasparov-level poker player would have to be very rational.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
And also hasn't BA been a well known online player for a number of years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah he was exposed by Prahlad as a likely colluder in the big UB games awhile ago.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
The story of my poker life in 07 is that I was a big loser online, but I was the biggest or second biggest winner in live poker from May-August. On the whole, that has left me pretty flush.

My online play has suffered from some bad life management... I've been living a bit too fast, trying to do everything on a high level. It is ridiculous to play the biggest online games in hotel rooms while you are on respite from the biggest live games, and, yet, this is what I've been doing. Moreover, I basically didn't have a home from May-early November, and I was dealing with the stress of a broken engagement. I feel that my level of poker knowledge is at a world-class level, and in the past (especially 05) that led me to good success online, but this year my online endeavors have been a failure. I can't say how much of that is due to variance and how much is due to bad play.

Here's a good illustration of the difference b/w live and online....
David Peat (Viffer) is one of the best live NL regulars. Online play is all about optimizing one's bluffing/value-betting ratio based on the tendencies of your opponents. Well, for six months, Viffer had a policy of never bluffing Kenny. That is, if he bet big on the river against Kenny, he was never bluffing. For him, that was optimal... if Kenny knows when you're bluffing, your optimal bluffing percentage is 0. Something like that just makes no sense in the context of online poker.

Brandon

[/ QUOTE ]

i've played with viffer live and online and think he plays very mediocre poker in both contexts.
however, when i played with him live he was best friends with all of the fish and succeeded in getting himself invited onto antoine walker's private jet so they could continue the game when antoine had to leave. this didn't actually happen, but antoine and his friends were fairly serious about it.
i have no doubt viffer makes a lot of money playing live poker, but i really don't think its because he's one of the best no limit hold'em players around. i don't think he could beat a table of first rate online 5/10 players, even if they were playing live.

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's worth noting that most or all of the players in the Big Game have played on FT at some point, and only two of these players are up, as far as I know (Phil Ivey and PA). I'm not lumping myself in the same category as these players by any stretch, I'm just noting that live and online are very different. Obviously, the skill sets in live vs online are different. I speculate that another key factor is that it's hard to conduct your life in such a way that you are set up for success in both live and online play. The live winner is ultra-flexible in his lifestyle, always willing to travel or stay up late to get in/stay in the best games. The online winner needs to live a more structured life. -Brandon

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a very interesting post and speaks to a lot of what i was just saying about viffer. i didn't even want to get on that flight because i didn't want to have to figure out how to get back from miami and miss two days of online play for 100 hands vs huge fish...

Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin
 

I'll chime in with praise for Brandon as one of the best poker writers around.

Someone mentioned that top bridge players can stay world-class into their 50s. I think there is a demographic issue at work. I'd guess that 50 years ago, when bridge was very popular, the age range of the top players was much lower. Nowadays, comparatively few young people learn bridge in a serious way, so there is a lack of young people to push out the old guard.

The same was true of poker 20-25 years ago. If you look at some of the footage from the WSOP back then, you don't see many twenty-somethings.

Now, with the Hold'em boom, and online poker providing the ideal training ground for new talent, there is a flood of young people entering the game, drowning out the old guard by sheer numbers (if not innate ability).

Also, currently, the average age of top chess players is solidly in the 25-35 age range, as it has been for about 4 decades. There are still a fair number of young phenoms coming into the game - in fact by age 21 they are veterans, having played serious chess for over a decade in almost all cases.

IMO, Kasparov would have maintained a top 5 ranking for another couple of decades had he wished too, but there was no doubt that his abilities were in slight decline.

The amount of work required to stay at the top in chess is much greater than the effort required to become a top poker player. With all the analytical tools available to chess players now, the best prepared player usually wins out. Though Kasparov has great innate chess skills, most observers thought that he maintained his grip on the top spot because he out-prepared his opponents.

If you could measure the "chess IQ" of the top 15 players in the world, I doubt there would be significant differences. I think the differences arise in work-ethic, fitness level and the ability to deal with pressure.

I think the same is and will be true of top poker players.