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

[Howard Treesong]

[ 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 ]

With due respect, you don't appear to know what irony means . . . no further explanation necessary.

[mikechops]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
old people stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

We're lazy!

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
old people stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[wet work]

Seems like young vs. old is a debate that's been going on for a while now. I was watching the WSOP from '78 I think, when Bobby Baldwin won, and one thing they mentioned several times was all the good new young players. It's poker evolution, online is just the next step.

It's already been said, but alot of the younger guys today have the time to devote to the game. And the risk of going broke isn't nearly as troubling as it would be for an older player (who's just starting as well.) I've played so many more hands of poker online in the last 5 yrs that it dwarfs the 15 years prior to that. One thing that I think will be interesting to see is if alot of the younger guys actually stick with it without getting burned out.

We all will peak between the ages of 24-45 for the most part anyway, so I don't think the younger have any huge inherent edge. However, I do think the younger players have an edge in just plain overall computer savvy. It's taken me awhile to really make use of all the resources available whereas I think with the younger guys it's just part of their make-up by just growing up in an era where computers are such a huge part of their lives.

[Compit]

[ 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...

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm 38 with a Masters in both Computer Science and Mathematics and am head of programming at a Fortune 500 company. We "older people" simply cannot sit around in our PJs all day and play poker. It's called already having a life.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[/ QUOTE ]

[VeryTnA]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you all are underestimating how dumb old people are. They wear their pants up to their nipples and drive American cars. The listen to Kenny G and watch Matlock while eating meat loaf. Pretty dumb, AMIRITE?



[/ QUOTE ]
Yes you are correct! It will take 40 year for you to really know how right you are.

[evagaba]

Superfluous Man, I'm gonna need you to come in on Saturday.

And oh yeah..I'm the one that SAYS that...Not that gets it said to him.

And, Oh Yeah, I will bet my 38 yr old azz guaranteed salary is WAY more than 95% of the pajama wearing grinders here.

[questions]

[ 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

[stan ivey]

[ 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 ]

ya that schneids guy is a huge fish, let him keep losin