[Greeksquared]

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 ]