Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > News, Views, and Gossip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 11-26-2007, 05:06 PM
Poker Clif Poker Clif is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Three Rivers, Michigan, USA
Posts: 286
Default Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin

[ QUOTE ]
There will never be a Woods or Federer of poker because the variance plays such a roll. If anything the evolution of the game will make it harder for someone to dominate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over the last five years (enough hands to at least somewhat discount variance), a player with all of the technical skills, Chris Ferguson, Ph.D., is the best player at the WSOP.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 11-26-2007, 05:11 PM
Poker Clif Poker Clif is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Three Rivers, Michigan, USA
Posts: 286
Default Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

The "luck" question has already been solved.

"If it wasn't for luck, I'd win every hand."--Phil Hellmuth
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 11-26-2007, 06:58 PM
curtains curtains is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 13,960
Default Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There will never be a Woods or Federer of poker because the variance plays such a roll. If anything the evolution of the game will make it harder for someone to dominate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over the last five years (enough hands to at least somewhat discount variance), a player with all of the technical skills, Chris Ferguson, Ph.D., is the best player at the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't even anywhere close to enough to discount variance. Its what like 200 tournaments at most?
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 11-27-2007, 04:37 PM
HorridSludgyBits HorridSludgyBits is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 108
Default Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...
Also, currently, the average age of top chess players is solidly in the 25-35 age range, as it has been for about 4 decades. There are still a fair number of young phenoms coming into the game - in fact by age 21 they are veterans, having played serious chess for over a decade in almost all cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Top 5 FIDE players birth years:

1. 1969
2. 1969
3. 1975
4. 1975
5. 1979

That puts the youngest one at nearly 30. The top two at 40 each. There are some major exceptions like Karjakin (1990) ranked 24, and Radjabrov (1987 - ranked 8th) but they are the exception and not the rule.

Child 'prodigies' get alot of attention because of their novelty (which is quickly losing it's novelty!), but very few end up amounting to anything. Hello Waitzkin! Which in alot of ways is why chess is such an interesting analog to poker in the this thread.

Many many many players have chess shoved down their throat from the time they are a baby by parents looking to live vicariously through their children. Of these, a miniscule fraction go on to become 'prodigies'. And of the 'prodigies', an even smaller fraction go on to do anything besides break a random age record here or there until moving onto other things. The ones that do go on to accomplish big things, don't do so as child prodigies but as the few adults that actually manage to maintain their work ethic towards chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but look at the ages at which these players became grandmasters (the highest title in chess). I'm guessing all obtained their GM title in their early teens. The main body of information is learned very early, the rest is just fine tuning, competitive toughness, handling pressure, experience, etc.

The main reason Josh Waitzkin and other prodigies fade away is because of burnout (the ridiculuous amount opening study has to be nearly all-consuming to keep up with the competition), and because there are so many easier ways (esp. in the US/EU) to make a living for an intelligent person.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 11-27-2007, 05:33 PM
KamiKatze KamiKatze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Princeton-Plainsboro
Posts: 449
Default Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin

You need sex for poker.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 11-27-2007, 07:47 PM
Allinlife Allinlife is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Folder\'s club member
Posts: 3,207
Default Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin

[ QUOTE ]
Itís well known that brain function (especially the ability to learn new skills) declines with age, starting at about age nineteen.

[/ QUOTE ]
for some reason reading this part made me feel a little scared because I'm 19, and also provided me with a surge of motivation to work on my poker game/ and other things in life.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 11-27-2007, 08:03 PM
pedercina71 pedercina71 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 21
Default Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]



I disagree, because I think Brandon is focusing on skill sets rather than results. While it's true that it's impossible for someone to show the session-by-session or tournament-by-tournament dominance that Federer, Woods, and Kasparov show(ed) in their games, it is not impossible for someone to similarly command the full set of poker skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the command of those poker skills can not be measured in a result over time then there is no way of knowing they exist. If Federer did not dominate we could not deduce his skill is high even if it is possible he had the skill.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 11-27-2007, 08:21 PM
pedercina71 pedercina71 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 21
Default Re: The Life Cycle of a Poker Player (and my thoughts on live vs onlin

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...
Also, currently, the average age of top chess players is solidly in the 25-35 age range, as it has been for about 4 decades. There are still a fair number of young phenoms coming into the game - in fact by age 21 they are veterans, having played serious chess for over a decade in almost all cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Top 5 FIDE players birth years:

1. 1969
2. 1969
3. 1975
4. 1975
5. 1979

That puts the youngest one at nearly 30. The top two at 40 each. There are some major exceptions like Karjakin (1990) ranked 24, and Radjabrov (1987 - ranked 8th) but they are the exception and not the rule.

Child 'prodigies' get alot of attention because of their novelty (which is quickly losing it's novelty!), but very few end up amounting to anything. Hello Waitzkin! Which in alot of ways is why chess is such an interesting analog to poker in the this thread.

Many many many players have chess shoved down their throat from the time they are a baby by parents looking to live vicariously through their children. Of these, a miniscule fraction go on to become 'prodigies'. And of the 'prodigies', an even smaller fraction go on to do anything besides break a random age record here or there until moving onto other things. The ones that do go on to accomplish big things, don't do so as child prodigies but as the few adults that actually manage to maintain their work ethic towards
chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiuosity, what ever happened to Morten Olsen?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.