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

[Micturition Man]

I want to add a little more.

One problem with 'tracking' poker players is that to the extent that poker is a moneymaking activity and not an end in itself, the best players often move on to completely different things, which judging from the OP might be misinterpreted as failure or burnout.

Take Howard for example. However good he may have been, now that he's making $100 gajillion a year why would he spend any more time on poker than pure enjoyment leads him to?

Also look at Doyle and Chip. Contrary to popular image they have not been playing high limit poker 24-7 for the last 30 years.

They went through spans of multiple years where their primary interests were sports betting or business ventures or who knows what.

The problem is that due to the impossibility of real, objective, widely shared ratings of player skill, there is no real glory in poker the way there is in chess or tennis or many other competitive activies. There is no heavyweight title to devote your career to winning. It's just the endless ebb and flow of money won and lost.

So the only real drives are fun/compulsion and making money. And different people are motivated to very different degrees depending on their personality and situation in life.

[Ansky]

I agree w/ mic man.

The thing is, the general public may view the WSOP main event as the Wimbledon of poker, but any real poker player knows that it's just the powerball of poker.

[wins_pot]

The story of my poker life in 07 is that I was a big loser online, but I was the biggest or second biggest winner in live poker from May-August. On the whole, that has left me pretty flush.

My online play has suffered from some bad life management... I've been living a bit too fast, trying to do everything on a high level. It is ridiculous to play the biggest online games in hotel rooms while you are on respite from the biggest live games, and, yet, this is what I've been doing. Moreover, I basically didn't have a home from May-early November, and I was dealing with the stress of a broken engagement. I feel that my level of poker knowledge is at a world-class level, and in the past (especially 05) that led me to good success online, but this year my online endeavors have been a failure. I can't say how much of that is due to variance and how much is due to bad play.

Here's a good illustration of the difference b/w live and online....
David Peat (Viffer) is one of the best live NL regulars. Online play is all about optimizing one's bluffing/value-betting ratio based on the tendencies of your opponents. Well, for six months, Viffer had a policy of never bluffing Kenny. That is, if he bet big on the river against Kenny, he was never bluffing. For him, that was optimal... if Kenny knows when you're bluffing, your optimal bluffing percentage is 0. Something like that just makes no sense in the context of online poker.

Brandon

[Djcoax]

So at age 31 I'm basically screwed ?

[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, for six months, Viffer had a policy of never bluffing Kenny. That is, if he bet big on the river against Kenny, he was never bluffing. For him, that was optimal... if Kenny knows when you're bluffing, your optimal bluffing percentage is 0. Something like that just makes no sense in the context of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain this, as it makes no sense to me.

[novel20]

Don't worry about it if all you want is to make money. Even the richest poker player is no way close to the Forbes' list.

[EWS87]

[ QUOTE ]
well, for six months, Viffer had a policy of never bluffing Kenny. That is, if he bet big on the river against Kenny, he was never bluffing. For him, that was optimal... if Kenny knows when you're bluffing, your optimal bluffing percentage is 0. Something like that just makes no sense in the context of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

having any percentage of a certain play at 0 can not be anything close to optimal no matter what

[cwar]

[ QUOTE ]

Here's a good illustration of the difference b/w live and online....
David Peat (Viffer) is one of the best live NL regulars. Online play is all about optimizing one's bluffing/value-betting ratio based on the tendencies of your opponents. Well, for six months, Viffer had a policy of never bluffing Kenny. That is, if he bet big on the river against Kenny, he was never bluffing. For him, that was optimal... if Kenny knows when you're bluffing, your optimal bluffing percentage is 0. Something like that just makes no sense in the context of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sick.

[cwar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well, for six months, Viffer had a policy of never bluffing Kenny. That is, if he bet big on the river against Kenny, he was never bluffing. For him, that was optimal... if Kenny knows when you're bluffing, your optimal bluffing percentage is 0. Something like that just makes no sense in the context of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

having any percentage of a certain play at 0 can not be anything close to optimal no matter what

[/ QUOTE ]
If your cards are face up (essentially what hes saying) yes it is.

[SmokeyJ]

I didn't read all the replies so I don't know if this has been said and i suspect it has, but isn't it possible that a federer or 'perfect' player of poker has actually evolved but can't gain near perfect results or results as good as federer due to the luck and swings involved in poker?

I mean I'm sure if poker magically had no luck involved (can't really see how that's possible lol) wouldnt it be safe to say that the best online players (or player if there is one) would win almost every match they played like federer does? or that ivey would win almost every live match he plays?

I don't really know much about poker so just speculating, and also isn't it the same with chess because chess is a game of perfect knowledge and poker isnt?

Great post though hit on some very good points

Edit: Just had a change of heart and read the replies and someone said it doesn't matter about poker not being perfect information because of a lack of 'complete skills', but how do we know?