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

quitting time for AC slater obv.

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

[ QUOTE ]
wow

[/ QUOTE ]

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

this article is bad news for poker players. forget about all of the other bad things we do to our brain, poker itself is killing us!!!

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

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post, but I think the lack of variance in chess and tennis makes the Kasparov/Federer analogies fairly meaningless. I think that's the real reason why there has never, and probably will never be a well-defined "best player" in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, because I think Brandon is focusing on skill sets rather than results. While it's true that it's impossible for someone to show the session-by-session or tournament-by-tournament dominance that Federer, Woods, and Kasparov show(ed) in their games, it is not impossible for someone to similarly command the full set of poker skills.

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

i GUESS i can jump on the BA bandwagon and say nice post [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. i certainly agree with the stuff about the future of poker, especially NL games online as this easily holds true over the last 4 years, and how the best players now probably wont be in 2 years. it will certainly be interesting to witness the evolution of poker over the next few years

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice post, but I think the lack of variance in chess and tennis makes the Kasparov/Federer analogies fairly meaningless. I think that's the real reason why there has never, and probably will never be a well-defined "best player" in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, because I think Brandon is focusing on skill sets rather than results. While it's true that it's impossible for someone to show the session-by-session or tournament-by-tournament dominance that Federer, Woods, and Kasparov show(ed) in their games, it is not impossible for someone to similarly command the full set of poker skills.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just 2 years ago no one really had any idea who the best online NLHE players were. But now some railtard could at least make a top 10 list of online players due to all the tracking sites. Of course, live there is really no way to determine since people can lie about winrates and not enough hands are played before a game will break down.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice post, but I think the lack of variance in chess and tennis makes the Kasparov/Federer analogies fairly meaningless. I think that's the real reason why there has never, and probably will never be a well-defined "best player" in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, because I think Brandon is focusing on skill sets rather than results. While it's true that it's impossible for someone to show the session-by-session or tournament-by-tournament dominance that Federer, Woods, and Kasparov show(ed) in their games, it is not impossible for someone to similarly command the full set of poker skills.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just 2 years ago no one really had any idea who the best online NLHE players were. But now some railtard could at least make a top 10 list of online players due to all the tracking sites. Of course, live there is really no way to determine since people can lie about winrates and not enough hands are played before a game will break down.

[/ QUOTE ]


sammy farha obv

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

The peak for a live player is 33? , you might want to tell Freddie Deeb and Chip Reese.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post, but I think the lack of variance in chess and tennis makes the Kasparov/Federer analogies fairly meaningless. I think that's the real reason why there has never, and probably will never be a well-defined "best player" in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Golf is probably a closer analogy in this respect. The best golfers in the world lose much more often than they win. Prior to Tiger coming along, due to the depth of the modern fields, it was generally believed that no one would ever challenge the all-time records in golf -- Nicklaus' 18 majors, Snead's 81 (I think) wins. Utter domination was thought to be unachievable. Not only has Tiger achieved what was perceived to be impossible, he has inspired others such as Vijay and Phil to raise the levels of their games and put together seasons which but for Tiger's brilliance would have to be considered among the best of all time given the level of competition. Perhaps someone will come along in poker and make our current beliefs about maximum win rates, ROI and variance look naive.

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

[ 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