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

[VPIP100]

[ QUOTE ]
Very nice post Brandon. Unfortunately as a 19-year-old I am distracted from completely mastering the game by things such as college girls and alcohol, but I try my best [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[TheFuGu]

Brandon you are obviously a well educated guy with a great understanding of both poker and the sort of life skills required to succeed.

This is not a critisicm I just cant comprehend how someone with your level of intelligence can lose more than 700k playing high stakes pot limit omaha this year online. Do you put it down to running bad?

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, for six months, Viffer had a policy of never bluffing Kenny. That is, if he bet big on the river against Kenny, he was never bluffing. For him, that was optimal... if Kenny knows when you're bluffing, your optimal bluffing percentage is 0. Something like that just makes no sense in the context of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain this, as it makes no sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT

[JPFisher55]

Has anyone ever considered that comparing online poker to live poker is like comparing marathon runners to sprinters. IMO they are two different games of the same genera just like marathon or long distance running is a different sport from 100 or 200 meter dash, but part of the genera of track.
No one wonders which runner is best when comparing long distance runners to short distance runners, but everyone wonders if online or live poker players are better. IMO some are better at live and some better at online.

[Zetack]

Pseudo-science! I love it. Seriously, to take a few poorly understood scientific factoids and try to extrapolate anything serous out of it with regards to poker is not particularly meaningful. More a case of garbage in, garbage out. Although it did make for an interesting read, so not entirely a wasted effort.

As to the thought that we may see a Kasparof of poker, or perhaps a tiger woods, or federer, it isn't very likely. The main problem is that the edge in poker is simply too small. Say a player came along who was a 10% better player than the next best player in the world. That's a massive improvement, and probably unrealistic. But even so, that doesn't directly translate to 10% better results. That increase in skill probably translates to a fraction of a percent increase in results over the competition. And that's simply not enough to give us a recognizable kasparov or Federer.

Also, if the player is so much better, isn't it possible that his game selection skills are better as well? That he doesn't need the ego stroking from playing the best and instead plays in the most profitable games? And thus rarely, if ever, playing the best (albeit inferior to him) players in the world, we would never recognize him as the best player?

Also, given that poker is a gambling game, it is highly unlikely you'll see large numbers of kids pushed into it, and learning and breathing poker from the time they're five as you do in sports and even chess. So you just aren't going to get that kind of development.

Finally a querry. Is the player that Brandon refers to, who plans to quit when a crop of better players comes along really making a wise choice? At the end of the day, as long as there are fish in the pool, poker doesn't require you to be the best. Unlike tennis, or golf, or whatever, in order to be wildly successful, you do not have to face off against the top players in the world...

[ QUOTE ]


Brandon you are obviously a well educated guy with a great understanding of both poker and the sort of life skills required to succeed.

This is not a critisicm I just cant comprehend how someone with your level of intelligence can lose more than 700k playing high stakes pot limit omaha this year online. Do you put it down to running bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is definitely not a question a well educated guy with great understanding of both poker and life skills would ask.

Pretty silly.

[TheFuGu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Brandon you are obviously a well educated guy with a great understanding of both poker and the sort of life skills required to succeed.

This is not a critisicm I just cant comprehend how someone with your level of intelligence can lose more than 700k playing high stakes pot limit omaha this year online. Do you put it down to running bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is definitely not a question a well educated guy with great understanding of both poker and life skills would ask.

Pretty silly.

[/ QUOTE ]


I missed his post in this thread before I asked it where he answers why he has had bad results online.

However I dont see how this can be considered a bad question given the tone of his article.

[good2cu]

Because anyone asking it clearly doesn’t understand the least bit about poker, gambling or any risk related endeavor. It is not a terrible question but the way in which you phrased the question makes you look ignorant and uneducated about poker. It basically reads, “ZOMG YOU LOST 700k YOU MUST SUCK. WHY DIDN’T YOU QUIT SOONER?”

[TheFuGu]

[ QUOTE ]

Because anyone asking it clearly doesn’t understand the least bit about poker, gambling or any risk related endeavor. It is not a terrible question but the way in which you phrased the question makes you look ignorant and uneducated about poker. It basically reads, “ZOMG YOU LOST 700k YOU MUST SUCK. WHY DIDN’T YOU QUIT SOONER?”


[/ QUOTE ]


Ok perhaps the wordage was wrong....


Was his own experiences that led him to understand better what the difference is between the great online players psyche versus a live mentality and what different elements it takes to get to these levels. I am curious...

[jeff329]

[ QUOTE ]
Pseudo-science! I love it. Seriously, to take a few poorly understood scientific factoids and try to extrapolate anything serous out of it with regards to poker is not particularly meaningful. More a case of garbage in, garbage out. Although it did make for an interesting read, so not entirely a wasted effort.

As to the thought that we may see a Kasparof of poker, or perhaps a tiger woods, or federer, it isn't very likely. The main problem is that the edge in poker is simply too small. Say a player came along who was a 10% better player than the next best player in the world. That's a massive improvement, and probably unrealistic. But even so, that doesn't directly translate to 10% better results. That increase in skill probably translates to a fraction of a percent increase in results over the competition. And that's simply not enough to give us a recognizable kasparov or Federer.

Also, if the player is so much better, isn't it possible that his game selection skills are better as well? That he doesn't need the ego stroking from playing the best and instead plays in the most profitable games? And thus rarely, if ever, playing the best (albeit inferior to him) players in the world, we would never recognize him as the best player?

Also, given that poker is a gambling game, it is highly unlikely you'll see large numbers of kids pushed into it, and learning and breathing poker from the time they're five as you do in sports and even chess. So you just aren't going to get that kind of development.

Finally a querry. Is the player that Brandon refers to, who plans to quit when a crop of better players comes along really making a wise choice? At the end of the day, as long as there are fish in the pool, poker doesn't require you to be the best. Unlike tennis, or golf, or whatever, in order to be wildly successful, you do not have to face off against the top players in the world...

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent.