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

LearnedfromTV · #1 11-19-2007, 09:04 PM

Great read, enjoy the analogies to tennis and chess. An analogy to golf might be interesting as well; that seems to be a game where accumulated experience has greater value and peak age is higher than tennis or math/logic intensive intellectual pursuits, but where Tiger Woods-like training while young is necessary to become, well, Tiger Woods.

The brain function stuff is fascinating.

I'd like to hear more opinions from top level players on the skill set that the Federer/Kasparov/Woods would need to have.

STA654 · #2 11-19-2007, 09:10 PM

So your saying Brian Townsend has peaked?
awesome post btw.

timex · #3 11-20-2007, 12:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So your saying Brian Townsend has peaked?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats hes saying is that a player who dedicates them self to playing optimally from as early as possible will peak at 24, Brian has put nowhere near that kind of effort into his play and is still developing.

Also, I think that top chess players are better at chess than basically anyone is at anything, and I don't think poker will be that way any time soon.

jeff329 · #4 11-20-2007, 12:20 AM

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.

Somnius · #5 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 · #6 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 · #7 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...

kuelk420 · #8 11-20-2007, 12:30 AM

Very nice article Brandon. I agree in two or three years we will see an evolution in poker as these young guys who have known nothing else but playing poker 24/7 aided by tools such as 2+2, poker tracker, poker training sites, etc. mature. It's going to be scary.

ActionStan · #9 11-20-2007, 09:44 AM

Playing devil's advocate here, the online game is dominated by midstack poker where analysis and early street decision making dominates the play. Brandon was pretty clear that the online players have the strongest skills in these areas right now. Saying that these two players aren't winning online players doesn't discredit his argument at all. It is his argument.

Sciolist · #10 11-21-2007, 08:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think that top chess players are better at chess than basically anyone is at anything, and I don't think poker will be that way any time soon.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this completely too. If you look at the effort and complexity of thought required to be at the top of chess, or perhaps something like maths (or any science), it's so far from what we do right now that it doesn't even bear comparison.

However, it's highly unlikely that there will be (m)any more huge improvements of play in poker, it'll probably just be a series of small adjustments. I say this because there are already a large number of smart people working on the game and we're fairly close to solving a few forms: Think ICM, think headsup limit. Adding things in that we don't already - wider use of sophisticated analysis, better fitness, better directed learning - I don't think they'll shift the poker landscape all that far.

Thus everyone will get closer and closer in skill level and the rake will become a bigger and bigger factor. Who cares if I'm 1% better than you if neither of us can beat the rake any more? Whoever is amongst the best in five years will be better than whoever is best now, but if they came back to our games today they'd not win more than 10 or 20% more than people do today.

Even now, rake is typically about 5ptbb/100 at SSNL, which is the same as the good win rates. I think that the gap between the best players and the new players will become big enough that the new players won't come in to the games fast enough to stop them becoming too tough to beat.