[Closed] old timers

Hey flopturnriveraaa, (must be nice btw)

I think that the new generation are undoubtedly better fundementally than the old brigade. "We" have played so many more hands than the guys who play predominantly live, I think we can read board textures/bet sizing way better.

Old school players claim that they perform better live and we are only good on the internet that is "rigged", counter-argument against this is that the last 3 WSOP main event winners have all been "online kids".

The toughest events at the WSOP are reknowned to be the $10k 6max and the $25k heads up, this isn't because of the swamps of amazing live pros that turn out but instead because of the internet kids that come for the "challenge".

I was reading the other day that Neil Channing played almost every event in the WSOP, he swerved the $10k 6max though as I guess he didn't want to burn money.

Don't get me wrong, I think some of the old players are really good. Hellmuth for one has had some awesome results (although he is a huge cash game fish) but I think that the young guys are just too good fundamentally for them to compete in the long run.

Whats your thoughts?

well said i never took into account how many hands online players play ♦

we can play the same ammount of hands they play in all entire life in 3 months online. And yes, they are all not beter then us live. I mean yes, we need like 1 week or 2 to get used to live poker, but then we can just crush it like online.

I think we all know the game has evolved into something much different to what players like Moss, Ungar, and Brunson had played, (three generations, although I do believe Ungar was a literal genius in anything related to the odds of card playing) but we should respect them more for what they did for the actual game of poker. I'm sure most of the "internet" kids wouldn't even have gotten into online poker, nor would online poker be as big as it is, if it hadn't been for the certain key players, and generations, that spurred the growth of poker itself.

oh thats true if they wernt there poker would yet be looked down at and players wouldent b respected and btw ungar is fking god have any 1 of seen his documentary ??/ gr8

Originally posted by openendedagain
oh thats true if they wernt there poker would yet be looked down at and players wouldent b respected and btw ungar is fking god have any 1 of seen his documentary ??/ gr8

Yes I did and I think he would crush most online pros. Did you see the call he made with 9 high or something?

Originally posted by flopturnriveraaa
i know most of u woud disagree with me but i feel that poker old timers like brunson are given way too much credit ♠_evil: ♠_evil: ♠_cool: what do u guys think

Read their books. They are (were) all about gauging their opponents. Internet players can't do that as well, but we may do the math better -- which works better over huge volumes. One-on-One though, I've seen the "old guys" do amazing reads -- see the Negreanu videos for example.

It is not about who is "better", it is all about whose experience fits the moment. There is a cool hand where some young chick uses Brunson's T2o against him, exactly as he would have. It is a fun hand to watch, and if I find it I'll post the link. When the hand is done, he has a good laugh along with the rest of them.

Also, the old guys (most of 'em anyway) always seem to have a lot more poise and stability then some of the young 'uns. Class maybe is the word I'm looking for.

VorpalF2F

I belive you're talking about Melanie Weisner and that hand was in PAD freezout where young pros were seated with Doyle.

Line up: Weisner, Dwan, Baldwin, Lichtenberger, Obrestad and Doyle.

Bingo.
The funny part is when I went to search it on youtube, it was already in my favourites

Originally posted by VorpalF2F

Originally posted by flopturnriveraaa
i know most of u woud disagree with me but i feel that poker old timers like brunson are given way too much credit ♠_evil: ♠_evil: ♠_cool: what do u guys think

Read their books. They are (were) all about gauging their opponents. Internet players can't do that as well, but we may do the math better -- which works better over huge volumes. One-on-One though, I've seen the "old guys" do amazing reads -- see the Negreanu videos for example.

I don't know that you can draw a picture of such a difference between old and new, honestly, I think the whole distinction is overated.

look at Chris Moorman. Anyone want to argue that he's not great vs any field? live, online, old, new?

And then you have people like Phil Hellmuth...people say he's terrible at cashgames, but congratulations, he's still beating the games....I wish I was that bad.

Originally posted by MarcPS

Originally posted by VorpalF2F

Originally posted by flopturnriveraaa
i know most of u woud disagree with me but i feel that poker old timers like brunson are given way too much credit ♠_evil: ♠_evil: ♠_cool: what do u guys think

Read their books. They are (were) all about gauging their opponents. Internet players can't do that as well, but we may do the math better -- which works better over huge volumes. One-on-One though, I've seen the "old guys" do amazing reads -- see the Negreanu videos for example.

I don't know that you can draw a picture of such a difference between old and new, honestly, I think the whole distinction is overated.

look at Chris Moorman. Anyone want to argue that he's not great vs any field? live, online, old, new?

And then you have people like Phil Hellmuth...people say he's terrible at cashgames, but congratulations, he's still beating the games....I wish I was that bad.

+1

Originally posted by MarcPS
And then you have people like Phil Hellmuth...people say he's terrible at cashgames, but congratulations, he's still beating the games....I wish I was that bad.

If by beating the games you mean losing 1BI each session because he never reloads, then yes, he is CRUSHING the games! ♦