evolution of a poker player...

[ALAEI]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of examples in this thread about how the game has changed and you say, "Doyle did that 30 years ago, or Johnny Moss did that too". I don't think it's fair to take the top 0.1% players of then and say that just because they did it the game hasn't changed, it has. People in general are much smarter now then they were 30 years ago. Just look at the difference in movies from now and then, people now have a much better capacity to understand. If you are looking for a simple answer to this question there just isn't one. There are only a few different moves in poker (bet raise fold check raise etc). What makes poker great is not the ability to make those plays but the whole psychological side of the game and making those plays work in harmony. There are a lot more smart players playing now because of how big poker has gotten, it's not just cowboys anymore. There are a lot of brilliant minds dedicating themselves to poker that could probably excel in something far more important if they wanted to so the result will be a much more sophisticated general style of play and because of all the forums and online games other players can learn from these great minds in an easily accessible way. As far as the major changes the game is much more aggressive now, people have learned how to interpret and exploit everything that's being thrown at them. People are also more aware and are able to easily calculate hand equity and put their opponents on possible ranges in a more effective manner. 30 years from now I don't imagine there will be any new plays but I do think you'll go a few levels deeper.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually you're reiterating exactly what i said earlier. that it seems the top players are no better but there are alot more top players. because of this they are forced to face each other more often and become super sharp in order to survive.

[/ QUOTE ]


Of course they are better now. You don't think Doyle thinks he knows more about the game and makes less mistakes then he did 30 years ago? Just because he may not have found a new specific "play" that he never used to use doesn't mean he hasn't become a more refined, experienced player with less leaks at the table. That's what makes a good player "better".

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
please post one hand, one play, that you use now that you wouldnt have when you were just a "good" player. before

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling a lot lot less to "see the flop". These days good players dont call preflop just to see if the can hit something.
Similair to the above reraising preflop a lot more. Generally players realized that "implied odds" were overrated and folding equity underrated.
You saw that yourself. Your reaction was to call it rampant cheating... no suprprise there as its how modern poker strategy looks to old timers...

[HedonismBot]

To answer the original question for a specific hand, Strassa played a hand with QJ against Phil Ivey I think and bet pot or close to it on a river of KQxxx, maybe someone can find it.

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
The cowboys are underrated in this post.

Take a good online player (not the top .01%, just a good player) and stick him at a live table for the first time. While he sits and calculates ranges and ev and makes his plays accordingly, he gets run over by the sharks that see his brain working, and he goes home bitching about how bad live players are, the poorer for it.

I don't see why some version of this phenomenon wouldn't occur if players from the highest levels met at a table for the first time.

[/ QUOTE ]

ahahahaha this post is [censored] golden.

[VanVeen]

1. there is a 'random' element to strategy selection. great players may make a conscious effort to balance draws and strong hands when they check-raise on the flop but how those acts of "balancing" (and myriad others) reverberate across their entire strategy cannot be anticipated except in a very vague and general way. the evolutionary process seabeast was referring to (i think) involves selection pressures acting on those 'random' elements. even amongst the best of the best some will choose distributions that just 'align' better. they wont leak too much information or make as many transparent errors, and that will be true when it comes to their default strat and all their "adjusted" or player dependent strats. it is just trivially true that the strategies will end up being much, much better when the selection pressures act more aggressively (better players, tougher environment!) on a larger population (more players!). for this reason and this reason alone strategies today should be (and are) much better.

2. the logic behind poker strategy is very simple. it is no surprise that there are no conceptual breakthroughs to point limon to because there were none to make! that just doesn't matter. players are still much better on the whole and the best of the best are very likely wayyy better at actually playing poker (but not explaining it or analysing it or understanding what someone else is trying to do).

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are 3 main differences

1. More accurate hand ranges. Players now have multi-tabled many more hands than the players of old and thus have many more data points and the software tools like pokertracker to review, analyze, and internalize those ranges. And then take that info and translate it into play both live and on the internet. So a guy like Bobby Hoff might have played 1000 hands with a regular and thus know he’d play 98s, A9o or better in a given situation, but the internet pro likely can narrow it to JTs+ and AJo+ given more hands played and numeric evaluation of those spots.

2. Better understanding of equities against different hand ranges. Guys who’ve spend a lot of time with PokerStove or twodimes can give you a more accurate estimate of their equity. Ie. internet pro can tell you that his equity with AA on a flop of xxx vs. a guy w a range of JTs+,AJo+ who raises him is ~34-37% while Bobby Hoff’s more limited math and intuition based approach might tell him “around 2:1 against”

3. Better understanding of game-theoretic math behind HOW to mix up your game. Let’s say your opponent opens preflop and you call, and he bets the flop. You want to raise with your strong hands (sets/twopair) and some draws (Ax flush, open-enders). But strong hands aren’t dealt as often as draws and if you simply bet them all your opponent can call you down profitably. The answer is you must bet only a fraction of your draws. Bobby Hoff intuitively bet his draws 80% of the time, but today’s players have used game theory to realize 75% is better.

Each of those examples might only net you a small increase, but in each of those a small amount of the time you will be taking a different line or decision (ie. fold now instead of call 4 years ago) that is more profitable.

-g

[/ QUOTE ]

well, after 2500 views youve done an admirable job of summing up the totality of what has been offered so far. considering words like "crushed", "dominated" and "owned" were being thrown around...is anyone underwhelmed? i know i love poker stove/twodimes, i know im a better player now than i was 5 years ago, i lknow that if you were able to go back in time and play me in the commerce 10-10nl you would have no better chance of "crushing" or "owning" me than you would if you came and played me today in the 10-20nl. (you would be a major pain in my ass for about a week...underwhelming to say the least)

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of examples in this thread about how the game has changed and you say, "Doyle did that 30 years ago, or Johnny Moss did that too". I don't think it's fair to take the top 0.1% players of then and say that just because they did it the game hasn't changed, it has. People in general are much smarter now then they were 30 years ago. Just look at the difference in movies from now and then, people now have a much better capacity to understand. If you are looking for a simple answer to this question there just isn't one. There are only a few different moves in poker (bet raise fold check raise etc). What makes poker great is not the ability to make those plays but the whole psychological side of the game and making those plays work in harmony. There are a lot more smart players playing now because of how big poker has gotten, it's not just cowboys anymore. There are a lot of brilliant minds dedicating themselves to poker that could probably excel in something far more important if they wanted to so the result will be a much more sophisticated general style of play and because of all the forums and online games other players can learn from these great minds in an easily accessible way. As far as the major changes the game is much more aggressive now, people have learned how to interpret and exploit everything that's being thrown at them. People are also more aware and are able to easily calculate hand equity and put their opponents on possible ranges in a more effective manner. 30 years from now I don't imagine there will be any new plays but I do think you'll go a few levels deeper.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually you're reiterating exactly what i said earlier. that it seems the top players are no better but there are alot more top players. because of this they are forced to face each other more often and become super sharp in order to survive.

[/ QUOTE ]


Of course they are better now. You don't think Doyle thinks he knows more about the game and makes less mistakes then he did 30 years ago? Just because he may not have found a new specific "play" that he never used to use doesn't mean he hasn't become a more refined, experienced player with less leaks at the table. That's what makes a good player "better".

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry man you misunderstood me. i probably wasnt clear. i think we are all better now than we were 5 years ago. im just looking for some specifics and see if its as big a difference as many claim. i know a little about this subject as i have been a top section pro at commerce for a decade, had the chance to see the poker boom come (and maybe go) and already have opinions on this subject, i just wanted to see what everybody else thought. i have the utmost respect for many of the posters here and was curious.

[B Buddy]

a few ideas:

a lot more reraising preflop.

river check raises

stop and go

floating

thin value bets

[turnipmonster]

this is tangential to the thread, but has it always been the same person posting under your account?

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
this is tangential to the thread, but has it always been the same person posting under your account?

[/ QUOTE ]

no. i think i explained before that my brother is actually limon. he started posting at rgp and here back when i thought computers were "lame". he has 3 kids and no longer plays much. i took over his account in 2002.