evolution of a poker player...

[craig1120]

This thread makes me want to quit poker

[justaPlayer]

This has been a good thread and stuff and I've enjoyed reading thru it a little bit, so I just thought I'd contribute.
I think it really just boils down to volume. There are far more people playing and studying poker today than in years before. There is more money involved. Like a big football franchise coach with hundreds of millions of dollars behind him and his team, every effort is made to scrutinize the minutaie of every single play and to implement every conceivable technological advantage.
There is no doubt whatsoever that today's players are technically savvier and possessed of far more advanced technical understanding of the game (more precise equity calculations, etc.), and that even the average Internet player has probably by now played as many hands as an exclusively B&M player of the 90's had in his/her 30's.
All that said, it's all still relative just like it always has been in every generation, and as stakes increase, technical knowledge becomes less and less important anyway, as everyone at similar levels seems to know pretty much the same stuff. I'm saying, let a great Internet player of today, one of the 4 or 5 winningest, go and sit with Chip Reese for a long period of time. Let them play some live and some online, so no one would have any real advantage in familiarity of venue. Honestly, I don't think it would be a slaughter either way, in either format. The best are still the best, through all generations. It's about who can adapt, who can survive. Just like it always has been. The more things change, the more they stay the same. It truly is, evolution, at its finest and most rarefied. Evolution of the mind. It's just that today, there seem to be a lot more "bests" out there. Well, they're gonna get weeded out in time, too....
Just like the dude who prolly was able to hang with Chip for a couple decades, but finally went under and couldn't recover...
I think it's like this in closing (long post and convoluted I know): Johnny Moss, Chip Reese, Stu Ungar, Phil Ivey, Brian Townsend all at the same table would be a hell of an affair, whether it was on a computer or in a casino, and really I can see nobody having a clear dominating advantage.


PS. Props to Aba for his performance in Bobby's at the Bell

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread makes me want to quit poker

[/ QUOTE ]

why ...exactly

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
Like a big football franchise coach with hundreds of millions of dollars behind him and his team, every effort is made to scrutinize the minutaie of every single play and to implement every conceivable technological advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

like the redskins? (low blow i know...i liked your post)

[ALAEI]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you play at commerce? What's your name (if you don't mind) I have played top section games there for a few years and although I don't play there as much I still go once in awhile. I am asking because I really enjoy your posts and was wondering if I knew you.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you play at commerce? What's your name (if you don't mind) I have played top section games there for a few years and although I don't play there as much I still go once in awhile. I am asking because I really enjoy your posts and was wondering if I knew you.

[/ QUOTE ]

you know (of) me...i know (of) you. we havnt played together in a long while. i mainly show up for mixed games at big events nowadays (easier than holdem..lol). the things i have posted here about golf hustling, business deals, booking sports bets, cheaters, etc. make it impossible to give my identity...a known hustler is a broke hustler. you csn probably deduce who i am (if you really cared) but there is no upside for me in disclosing my identity and really no upside for anyone else in knowing...i tell what i *think* is the truth either way.

[Python49]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
- Live player wishing this were the case.

[g-p]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like a big football franchise coach with hundreds of millions of dollars behind him and his team, every effort is made to scrutinize the minutaie of every single play and to implement every conceivable technological advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

like the redskins? (low blow i know...i liked your post)

[/ QUOTE ]
F U !!!

[iRock]

[ 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 ]

Alaei,

Between playing you some online and your posts in this thread and the one about Brian and Sammy's Hu match, i am ready to subscribe to your newsletter. Your posts are really [censored] good.

[iRock]

The biggest difference I see is between online poker when i started (like 2 1/2 years ago) and now. When I first started, I would browse some forums, and I remember seeing someone start a hand analysis post with, "First off, there is no doubt in my mind that playing a tight, aggressive game is the best way to play poker." This wouldn't be all too weird, as there are TAG's around today. What was weird is even though it was like a 1/2 hand, EVERYONE in the thread agreed with him. This was before Prahlad came to prominence and in my opinion really revolutionized how online poker was played for at least a year. Not so long ago (and maybe still to some extent) if you weren't playing a LAG style, you were a bitch ass scared clown. Now in the coming year, some new weird hybrid will probably become prominent. I wouldn't say poker is evolving, as there are only a set number of plays you can ever make. I would say instead of an evolution with a start and then growing toward an unknown goal,poker is cyclical. It will go through different cycles as people adapt and replicate a very very complicated version of rock paper scissors.