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

Somnius · #1 11-20-2007, 12:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
brandon adams and kenny tran are both DOWN money playing online...if you cant win online you shouldnt be putting yourself in a category above online. While there may be an added element to play live (an element barry greenstein says is widely overrated), online is very straight up and real poker and neither player is successful there. this makes their credibility in discussing the top players quite iffy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to have cancer to research/analyze/understand it...even if what you're saying is really true...which I'm not really corroborating.

jeff329 · #2 11-20-2007, 12:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
brandon adams and kenny tran are both DOWN money playing online...if you cant win online you shouldnt be putting yourself in a category above online. While there may be an added element to play live (an element barry greenstein says is widely overrated), online is very straight up and real poker and neither player is successful there. this makes their credibility in discussing the top players quite iffy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to have cancer to research/analyze/understand it...even if what you're saying is really true...which I'm not really corroborating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well actually, in some ways, you do...since chess has been brought up...if no one kept track of results of chess players, who would you trust in telling you who the best players are? Kasparov who beat everyone he played? Or me, a decent player who studied the game? Am I in the position to determine who is the best? No, because if I knew what it meant to be the best, I would be the best. So, to claim you can assess who is best, without basing it on raw numbers, but on your observations as a player who can't win online yourself, credibility is lacking.

And btw, according to the rough estimates of high stakes database...Brandon adams is down big in holdem and in omaha...i am not saying he can't make judgements, but his assessments of who is who and what is what are really not that meaningful since he doesn't play poker as well as many online players.

Somnius · #3 11-20-2007, 12:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
brandon adams and kenny tran are both DOWN money playing online...if you cant win online you shouldnt be putting yourself in a category above online. While there may be an added element to play live (an element barry greenstein says is widely overrated), online is very straight up and real poker and neither player is successful there. this makes their credibility in discussing the top players quite iffy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to have cancer to research/analyze/understand it...even if what you're saying is really true...which I'm not really corroborating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well actually, in some ways, you do...since chess has been brought up...if no one kept track of results of chess players, who would you trust in telling you who the best players are? Kasparov who beat everyone he played? Or me, a decent player who studied the game? Am I in the position to determine who is the best? No, because if I knew what it meant to be the best, I would be the best. So, to claim you can assess who is best, without basing it on raw numbers, but on your observations as a player who can't win online yourself, credibility is lacking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assessment and practice need not be mutually inclusive in the realm of understanding...and they're definately not exhaustive...

Boise123 · #4 11-20-2007, 01:07 AM

I for one enjoyed the article. Thanks

cbloom · #5 11-20-2007, 01:23 AM

Decent article. I like the idea of kids in the future being groomed for poker the way they are for tennis now, or like Tiger was for golf. There really is no "Tiger Woods of poker" right now because nobody was raised from birth and coached their whole life with the goal of beating poker.

I think people underestimate how important technical play is and overvalue the impressive unorthodox plays someone like Kenny makes. Kenny might play the river amazingly well, might be able to make great reads, etc. etc. but if he makes big technical errors he is easy to beat. There are already a lot of people like BT who play very very good technical hold'em, and they will only get better, and so many people just don't understand that balanced/randomized technical play is not exploitable, while on the other hand technical errors against a near-game-theory opponent will definitely lead to long term money loss.

JokersAttack · #6 11-20-2007, 01:24 AM

Nice article.

NNNNOOOOONAN · #7 11-20-2007, 01:28 AM

Brandon is down online?

jeff329 · #8 11-20-2007, 01:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Brandon is down online?

[/ QUOTE ] He is down huge online...at least at 50/100 and up...and i know HSDB is not 100% accurate, but rarely does it show a 1.2 mil dog who is actually a winner..

What? · #9 11-20-2007, 01:25 AM

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.

If Tran feels he and others are better players it seems they could adapt to the internet games.

Micturition Man · #10 11-20-2007, 02:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There will never be a Woods or Federer of poker because the variance plays such a roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.

These discussions of who is the greatest and who is the best always make me uncomfortable, because the variance in poker makes it almost impossible to judge a player unless you are an expert yourself in the relevant game, AND you have extensive playing experience with the person in question.

Add to that the fact that there are many different niches within poker (tourneys, cash games, limit, NL, etc.) and the fact that people have different motivations and risk tolerances, and I feel like these discussions are kind of futile, at least among outside observers.

Much love for BA though. This was way more original and intelligent than 99% of what is written about the poker world.