Just how young (and why) are the top players online?

[Wowliksom!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the old guys who are defending Doyle's play is the perfect irony to encapsulate why the young guys are the ones crushing... No further explanation necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can determine poker breaks down to knowing what they have and knowing what they'll do.

PA was wrong about what he had and wrong about what he'd do. For that he lost half his stack.

DB was right about what he had and right about what he'd do. For that he took the chip lead.

People are calling PA's play great and DB's play horrible.

I don't get it.

It's a lot like the pros who bust out in the ME and leave complaining about the unbluffable fish. Well, why are you bluffing unbluffable fish? Who's really the idiot here? Right about what they had but wrong about what they'd do? To the rail ye go...

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't even bother, friend. Let the fish who think they're experts continue losing when they shouldn't. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't profess to be an expert at NL. Hell, I don't profess to even being good at NL. But, I can see why Doyle's play is horrible, and it's simple logic and simple poker theory to understand why. If you can't, don't go ragging on those who can. I'm not calling PA's play brilliant, but the fact is, Doyle's play is bad. 33 is not a trapping hand. What is he hoping for, a coin flip? He's either a coinflip, or a huge dog, calling a huge bet with barely anything invested. The play is to raise preflop, and if you limp, it is to fold once PA goes all in. You could call Doyle's play brilliant if he had A8. He had 33. He got very lucky PA had A2. You are looking at the hand in the simplest way possible, which is the results. Stop being so fuggin results oriented and examine things from a RANGE of hands. I bet you're the kind of guy who justifies all his plays by the results of what happened, rather than looking at things analytically/mathematically/logically. The simple fact is, Doyle was not some genius this hand. He gambled. He was hoping he was up against a coin flip. He had no clue if he was or wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well put, Schneids. I totally agree and can't really understand how this discussion came up. The hand is a nobrainer, 33 is not a trapping hand. Doyle played the hand terrible and got lucky.


BTW i'm 40 so I guess i'm not totally hopeless yet...