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

[homeboy604]

great post, thanks.

[Gary Stevenson]

[ 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

[SEABEAST]

[ 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 ]

omg lmao

[jk3a]

It never ceases to amaze me the number of well-educated, intelligent people that make matter of fact like statements professing the overwhelming edge that live players have vs. online players in a live/deep setting.

Enough all ready. The biggest long-term winners in online poker have played WAY more hands against MUCH tougher competition than the biggest long-term live winners.

This is not to say that there aren't many very, very good players live, but I'm certain that they don't have any significant edge against the best online players.

[post1958]

[ 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 ]

agree - and it's the lack of a luck element in chess and tennis that causes the lack of variance.

[plzbenice]

awesome post.

[STA654]

quitting time for AC slater obv.

[A_C_Slater]

At 27 this post makes me feel doomed. At least there's always shortstacking/ratholing. Unexploitable!

[ArmenH]

WOW, you actually wrote something worth reading for once.

[rocketsfan4lyfe]

thx for the post. in short, poker player = no life