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

[jogsxyz]

Brandon Adams says:

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking with a friend of mine who’s one of the best no-limit players in the world. He told me that in two years, the crop of top no-limit players would be scary, much better than those at the top of the game today. I agree with him. Perhaps these players are already out there, but don’t yet have the bankroll to play in the big games (an unfortunate requisite for being considered a top player). Or maybe they’ve yet to turn twenty-one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not convinced the top players will be that much better. But the level of play of the average players will improve dramatically. Every cycle the bad players quit and the better players keep playing. The game will be tougher.

[augie_]

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!!!

[raptor517]

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

[raze]

Great post - those are some interesting points.

[ QUOTE ]

In fields where processing power weighs very heavily (math, for instance), academics peak very young (around 25). In fields, such as history, where accumulated knowledge weighs heavily, the peak occurs at age fifty or later.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think highly experienced poker players, who have playing over dozens of years, would be using at the poker table more of their mathematical processing power, or their accumulated experience (history?) of poker? Including other factors like physical conditioning, would age necessarily be a detriment as opposed to an asset to a poker player?

[NNNNOOOOONAN]

so what does Nick have to do with this?

is he like the closest anyone has come to "the whole package?"

[Joseph Hewes]

[ QUOTE ]
so what does Nick have to do with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

[kemystery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so what does Nick have to do with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Nick is the example given of an online player that is on a similar level to the 'upper level' live pros

[buzz_ly]

[ QUOTE ]
It’s not surprising that the top online players tend to be much younger than the top live players. My guess is that the expected peak for a serious online player would be 24 or so, and the expected peak for a live player would be around 33.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a backwards argument. The primary reason online players peak younger is that they reach their heights far more quickly than live players (as far as number of hands). They make a lot of money, burn out, move on.

To piggyback off what FWF says in the Sklansky thread. Create a series of complex hands. An online/live mix (the live hands would include physical reads). Field a group of the top 20 live players and then the top 20 online players and have a panel judge their individual critical analyses.

You're kidding yourself if you think it would be close.

[Melchiades]

Think we got a good example of how sick good live players can play the river on the first hand of HSP last night.

[good2cu]

Brandon,
You and Phil are my favorite poker writers. Keep up the good work.

On an added note I already have a personal assistant and personal trainer to help me stay focused on poker. Upon relocating to Vegas I plan on hiring a psychologist, a coach and perhaps even a manger to further help me with my game and help me avoid some of the temptations of being a poker pro.