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

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The chess world is rife with addiction, drug and alcohol use, depression, and sleep deprivation as well. Professional chess players are every bit the degenerates that professional poker players are so, in that sense, this aspect of the contrast between chess and poker is invalid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was just about to say the exact same thing. It is extremely naive to say the chess world is significantly more 'pure' than poker. Many, and perhaps the majority of, world class chess players are just complete degenerates. Chess is another game that can just really take over your life. Players ending their lives alone, mentally deranged, impovershed, and with substance abuse problems is far from uncommon. Not a good comparison at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Walter Browne managed two final tables in this year's WSOP.

[Dire]

Another issue I have with this article is correlation vs causation. You see lots of youthful players dominating the online poker scene, so you imply youthful players must have some natural learning advantage over older players. While you mention that brain function tends to decline with age, you offer no further elaboration.

Have you considered the issues of time, motivation, etc? Online poker is a game that requires thousands of hours of work and effort to reach the top in, not to mention the motivation to begin playing online in the first place. Who is more likely to be able to put in the thousands of hours it takes to master this game - teenagers or 25+ adults? Who is more likely to have the motivation and trust to deposit onto some online poker site in the first place?

There is a direct analog for this in chess as well. Is Victor Kortchnoj a freak somehow able to bypass 'brain decay', or does he simply maintain the motivation that many players lose as they age?

[timex]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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.

[kuelk420]

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.

[jeff329]

[ 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]

[ 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...

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
everything is good except the part about live NL pros beating internet pros in a live deep stacked game. the live NL pros are beating soft games, none of them have been able to win in big games online, when they do my opinion will change.

and its ridiculous to think that the only part great about aba is his analytical skills and that his "instincts" aren't on the level of kenny tran(lol)

[/ QUOTE ]

yep

[jeff329]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
everything is good except the part about live NL pros beating internet pros in a live deep stacked game. the live NL pros are beating soft games, none of them have been able to win in big games online, when they do my opinion will change.

and its ridiculous to think that the only part great about aba is his analytical skills and that his "instincts" aren't on the level of kenny tran(lol)

[/ QUOTE ]

yep

[/ QUOTE ]


Concur. Talk is VERY VERY cheap. Tran has no business putting himself in a class above the people he has currently only lost money to at FTP. If Sammy Farha does not lose huge in the big game everyone talks about, and he plays AA the way he did vs Gold, then that game frankly isn't THAT tough. Anyone that weak at a difficult online table would be crushed.