Old versus Young in poker

[theprawnidentity]

If you are 35+ you are probably a fish right?

Click to see full-size image.

[JoeDiego]

I just think it'll be hilarious in 20 years when everyone plays aggro and the oldsters are just as wild as the kids.
Maybe the newer generation will adjust and all he nits to complete the twilight zone feel.

[Claw75]

Phil Ivey is 37, so that must be the nut age.

Can confirm that all the best people are 37

[kinboshi]

Phil Ivey is 37, so that must be the nut age.

Can confirm that all the best people are 37 or 38

FYP

[RED-DOG]

Phil Ivey is 37, so that must be the nut age.

Can confirm that all the best people used to be 37 or 38

FYP

FYP

[pleno1]

I'm on a table with 8 guys over 50 all of which are bad holder.

Doubt you ever get a table of 9 young guys who are all bad.

[Young_gun]

I am 25 look 35 +, tis good for me as i get alot of respect until i abuse them too much 

[Woodsey]

I'm on a table with 8 guys over 50 all of which are bad holder.

Doubt you ever get a table of 9 young guys who are all bad.

 

[JK]

Even though you are just poking the fire with a stick covered in petrol Woodsey, I like this subject so will reply with my thoughts. I mean no offence and I hope people don't get offended if I call their age group "old" (most people are old to me on here, Im only 23 ffs XD).

Poker used to be an old mans game. You'd learn the game when you were young maybe, but wouldn't play till you were 40+. Nowadays, poker is alot more diverse in the age groups playing, if not more skewed to young people.

Its a fact of life that young people pick up things faster than older people. It is also a fact that the game has been analysed MASSIVELY in the past few years, with access to this information readily available for anyone who is willing to give time to seek it. If there are more people learning now than before (which is without question), and there are more young people learning than older (which there are), these people are learning much better fundamentals than before, meaning they will develop into better players.

Et voila.

[Steve Swift]

MBN being 23, I think I have a pair of socks older than that

[Woodsey]

Even though you are just poking the fire with a stick covered in petrol Woodsey, I like this subject so will reply with my thoughts. I mean no offence and I hope people don't get offended if I call their age group "old" (most people are old to me on here, Im only 23 ffs XD).

Poker used to be an old mans game. You'd learn the game when you were young maybe, but wouldn't play till you were 40+. Nowadays, poker is alot more diverse in the age groups playing, if not more skewed to young people.

Its a fact of life that young people pick up things faster than older people. It is also a fact that the game has been analysed MASSIVELY in the past few years, with access to this information readily available for anyone who is willing to give time to seek it. If there are more people learning now than before (which is without question), and there are more young people learning than older (which there are), these people are learning much better fundamentals than before, meaning they will develop into better players.

Et voila.

Whilst I was just having a bit of a wind up with this thread, its obvious younger players are better but I don't think its for the reasons you give. I gotta go to work now so can't write much, but I think its more to do with the fact that most of the bright older people who might succeed in poker are already in successful careers, have commitments and family, so spending all their time learning a new hobby/potential job that they have a good chance of failing (as with anyone playing poker) it is just not a viable option for most.

You young lads mostly don't have that so can take the risk. Yes there are some exceptions in both groups, but that is broadly speaking the case.

[kinboshi]

Even though you are just poking the fire with a stick covered in petrol Woodsey, I like this subject so will reply with my thoughts. I mean no offence and I hope people don't get offended if I call their age group "old" (most people are old to me on here, Im only 23 ffs XD).

Poker used to be an old mans game. You'd learn the game when you were young maybe, but wouldn't play till you were 40+. Nowadays, poker is alot more diverse in the age groups playing, if not more skewed to young people.

Its a fact of life that young people pick up things faster than older people. It is also a fact that the game has been analysed MASSIVELY in the past few years, with access to this information readily available for anyone who is willing to give time to seek it. If there are more people learning now than before (which is without question), and there are more young people learning than older (which there are), these people are learning much better fundamentals than before, meaning they will develop into better players.

Et voila.

Whilst I was just having a bit of a wind up with this thread, its obvious younger players are better but I don't think its for the reasons you give. I gotta go to work now so can't write much, but I think its more to do with the fact that most of the bright older people who might succeed in poker are already in successful careers, have commitments and family, so spending all their time learning a new hobby/potential job that they have a good chance of failing (as with anyone playing poker) it is just not a viable option for most.

You young lads mostly don't have that so can take the risk. Yes there are some exceptions in both groups, but that is broadly speaking the case.

Both saying the same thing basically.  The young guns have the time and dedication to study the game and analyse the information available.  Far fewer 'older' people have the time (because of other commitments), and therefore the ones that do stand out. The 'risk' factor is definitely a consideration.

I also think that there are a lot of 'older' players who haven't adapted as much as they could have over the years, and have been 'left-behind' somewhat.  Again, the ones that have adapted stand out.

[MANTIS01]

I agree kids generally have the time and willingness to dedicate to intensive learning and thus have a better opportunity to nail optimum theory. But that's to say optimum theory is the only attribute with value in poker. Older guys with decent theory might well have better patience & emotional control at the table. So if they both sit down to play a single live MTT across multiple days who is better equipped for success? It's about having the right blend of ingredients and I don't think the perfect blend is associated with either age group.

[Jon MW]

I agree kids generally have the time and willingness to dedicate to intensive learning and thus have a better opportunity to nail optimum theory. But that's to say optimum theory is the only attribute with value in poker. Older guys with decent theory might well have better patience & emotional control at the table. So if they both sit down to play a single live MTT across multiple days who is better equipped for success? It's about having the right blend of ingredients and I don't think the perfect blend is associated with either age group.

surely optimum theory takes into account patience and emotional control? Otherwise - it isn't optimal?


If they're not taking in to account all the variables then they're just doing sub standard maths.

[MANTIS01]

I agree kids generally have the time and willingness to dedicate to intensive learning and thus have a better opportunity to nail optimum theory. But that's to say optimum theory is the only attribute with value in poker. Older guys with decent theory might well have better patience & emotional control at the table. So if they both sit down to play a single live MTT across multiple days who is better equipped for success? It's about having the right blend of ingredients and I don't think the perfect blend is associated with either age group.

surely optimum theory takes into account patience and emotional control? Otherwise - it isn't optimal?


If they're not taking in to account all the variables then they're just doing sub standard maths.

When my mrs was learning to drive she absorbed every bit of information about how to drive a car safely on the road, she read the highway code cover to cover, and passed her theory test with flying colours.

On her actual driving test she was very nervous and drove out of the test centre and into a lamp post.