|
So I was feeling brazen today, and felt confident enough to sit at that one poker table that's at every casino that has the old men sitting at it exclusively.
Bad idea. Damn those guys were good, it was literally impossible for me to get a read on any of them, even the guy that seemed borderline deaf and senile was a cutthroat when it came to cards, (he won a 60 dollar hand by bluffing with a 2-3 unsuited.)
The worst part was, they were so polite, and gentlemanlike that I almost felt priveleged to lose my money to them, I couldn't even feel right inside getting mad that I got beat out by a lucky river card to lose most of my money.
Quite the life experience.
 
|
Through years of experience old people have learned that you don't have to constantly talk to figure out what you opponents hand is. I occasionally go to poker tournaments at friends houses (where its like $20-50 buy-in and there's like 20 or so people) and most of the kids are like 16-20 years old max. It seemed like every time where it was me and 1 other person after the flop, the other person would just start spamming me with questions. Of course, I just buy the pot because its obvious the kid doesn't have a hand. Playing with old men is hard, but once you can roll with them, you can consider yourself better than most at poker.
|
Lol they're old men playing their hobby, or they were contenders. Either way of course they're gonna be good, they've had decades of experience to refine their play. Mad skills man. Like, imagine if SC wasn't so dependent on how fast your hands are. I think you'd see a lot more old people pick it up, old people like to play thinking games like that. 
|
I've noticed that most old guys are not very good. At least compared to online players. They seem to rely too much on intuition and reads, and not enough on math or odds. Young online players seem to have a lot more hands played than older guys because of the amount of hands they can grind out online. There is a reason why the people winning all the big tournaments have been in their 20's  .
They also seem to be too passive.
|
"I play small ball poker"
- Doyle Brunson
On February 27 2012 14:42 relyt wrote:I've noticed that most old guys are not very good. At least compared to online players. They seem to rely too much on intuition and reads, and not enough on math or odds. Young online players seem to have a lot more hands played than older guys because of the amount of hands they can grind out online. There is a reason why the people winning all the big tournaments have been in their 20's . They also seem to be too passive.
Live poker requires a completely different set of skills to online poker. The best online player is arguably nanonoko, he has a positive balance for every single kind of hand bar a few. Even 23o is something like +$3,000. Not even the best online players are that consistent, and he got owned playing live for being far too aggressive out of position with ridiculous VPIP.
When you can grind out 4 or more tables at a time, its much easier to pick your opponents and play tighter (not just in range, but also in position, and knowing when you are +ev). When you are playing live you may not get a good hand for a whole session and its much harder to pick your opponents, but you still expect to make as much money as in online.
Remember when dwan first tried his hand at live he was losing a lot of money.
|
Doyle Brunson comes to mind. In the high stakes series he's notably one of the most concise talkers. If he ever says something it's brief and to the point. He looks extremely old, unhealthy and not very sharp, but it's like his mind has been polished into the perfect poker machine and he doesn't even actively think. Just knows exactly what and when to do and smells stuff without even looking.
haha, ninja'd
|
On February 27 2012 14:42 relyt wrote:I've noticed that most old guys are not very good. At least compared to online players. They seem to rely too much on intuition and reads, and not enough on math or odds. Young online players seem to have a lot more hands played than older guys because of the amount of hands they can grind out online. There is a reason why the people winning all the big tournaments have been in their 20's . They also seem to be too passive.
That passivity though is actually rather intimidating the first time you are surrounded by it at a table. I'm used to being around younger guys who bet aggressively using odds and this change in style was a complete 180 for me today.
|
On February 27 2012 14:47 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:42 relyt wrote:I've noticed that most old guys are not very good. At least compared to online players. They seem to rely too much on intuition and reads, and not enough on math or odds. Young online players seem to have a lot more hands played than older guys because of the amount of hands they can grind out online. There is a reason why the people winning all the big tournaments have been in their 20's . They also seem to be too passive. That passivity though is actually rather intimidating the first time you are surrounded by it at a table. I'm used to being around younger guys who bet aggressively using odds and this change in style was a complete 180 for me today.
All you have to do is pick up all the small pots and 3bet a lot. Then just fold when they play back. Normally you can nickel and dime them pretty easily.
|
On February 27 2012 14:43 sluggaslamoo wrote:"I play small ball poker" - Doyle BrunsonShow nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:42 relyt wrote:I've noticed that most old guys are not very good. At least compared to online players. They seem to rely too much on intuition and reads, and not enough on math or odds. Young online players seem to have a lot more hands played than older guys because of the amount of hands they can grind out online. There is a reason why the people winning all the big tournaments have been in their 20's . They also seem to be too passive. Live poker requires a completely different set of skills to online poker. The best online player is arguably nanonoko, he has a positive balance for every single kind of hand bar a few. Even 23o is something like +$3,000. Not even the best online players are that consistent, and he got owned playing live for being far too aggressive out of position with ridiculous VPIP. When you can grind out 4 or more tables at a time, its much easier to pick your opponents and play tighter (not just in range, but also in position, and knowing when you are +ev). When you are playing live you may not get a good hand for a whole session and its much harder to pick your opponents, but you still expect to make as much money as in online. Remember when dwan first tried his hand at live he was losing a lot of money.
That's true. btw nanonoko is one of my favorite players.
|
On February 27 2012 14:49 relyt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 14:47 Vindicare605 wrote:On February 27 2012 14:42 relyt wrote:I've noticed that most old guys are not very good. At least compared to online players. They seem to rely too much on intuition and reads, and not enough on math or odds. Young online players seem to have a lot more hands played than older guys because of the amount of hands they can grind out online. There is a reason why the people winning all the big tournaments have been in their 20's . They also seem to be too passive. That passivity though is actually rather intimidating the first time you are surrounded by it at a table. I'm used to being around younger guys who bet aggressively using odds and this change in style was a complete 180 for me today. All you have to do is pick up all the small pots and 3bet a lot. Then just fold when they play back. Normally you can nickel and dime them pretty easily.
It works up to a certain extent but once good players know you have high VPIP they will just float or re-steal, and it won't make you a lot of money.
You are better off just picking your opponents once you know their style and playing in position. Narrow their range, and you know what decision to make, e.g float if +ev against a loose aggressive pre-flop but weak post-flop, bluff anything against a check if you have fold equity (because they are rocks), play strong pre-flop against small ballers, etc.
Basically against these old guys you probably should have waited a while, and perhaps tried a few different things to figure out how to extract the most value with small pot poker to start with. Do they call triple barrels? Are they loose pre-flop, because their experience allows them to play strong post-flop? Do you check or bet for value? bet sizes versus fold equity versus continuation bet sizes more likely to be called? Don't get your chips in on marginal hands when you have no idea how the player plays.
Also you will find a lot of young guys (although I am one of them) are not actually that math oriented but just predictable maniacs. They don't know how to fold a top-pair and they don't know how to read warning signs. So if you land with your suited connectors, and they strike a top-pair (and e.g you narrowed their range to A:X with a pre-flop raise), inflate the pot big enough and you can check and bait an allin.
|
Imho it's no different live except you have a way smaller sample size and the players are WAY worse in every way imaginable
|
On February 27 2012 22:24 BrTarolg wrote:
Imho it's no different live except you have a way smaller sample size and the players are WAY worse in every way imaginable
This is not always true. In Melbourne there is really only one place you can play poker live and that's Crown, everywhere else its pub poker (play money chips). This also means you will end up playing both the best and worst players. Also Crown has the most ridiculous rake so you have to make sure it is worth your time. Aussies are pretty much stuck with tournaments and online poker for the most part. 
I dunno what its like where you play live, but you have to play a completely different style to online, so imo its completely different. Most of the time you will be playing like a nit because the others don't know the word fold, but occasionally you will get good players at the table and you wanna make it unprofitable for those guys too so they will leave.
|
I've always heard the live cash games at casinos were soft but the blinds and buy ins are always a bit too high stakes for me (considering i'm a student). I'd love to try it out though... Burswood is pretty shitty though $2/$5 with $300 max buy in. Pretty silly. I think the rake is like 1 in 10 as well.
Tournaments (MTTs) are quite high variance too, especially if the players are bad. It'd be like a free roll online =(
|
Not relevant really but using the opportunity to vent anyways. I very recently lost QQ with a Q on the flop to A?7d ... structured holdem... guy had to be 70~ and went all in on me re-raising on the turn hoping for a diamond for a flush on the river or an ace or something...
Old Bastard got his diamond and my money.
|
On February 28 2012 00:06 Vansetsu wrote:
Not relevant really but using the opportunity to vent anyways. I very recently lost QQ with a Q on the flop to A?7d ... structured holdem... guy had to be 70~ and went all in on me re-raising on the turn hoping for a diamond for a flush on the river or an ace or something...
Old Bastard got his diamond and my money.
The worst I've had is losing a $280 pot all in on the flop, I had 3 of a kind Q's vs high card K (he called my 4BB preflop, i had to put him on a tight range and the board was pretty dry except for that queen, and I had been stealing pots all this time and perhaps he thought he could catch my bluff) and lost to a back door flush. Chances of losing was 5%.
I then do the stupidest thing I always do when im on tilt and that is go play omaha. At least now I know that as soon as I think that, to uninstall the game and reinstall it when I've stopped tilting lol.
|
Old people are awful at poker. You can play more hands online in a day than most of those old casino players have played in their lives. Furthermore, the game has changed considerably just in the last five years (due to Internet discussions and high volume of hands), but none of the old guys have kept up.
|
On February 27 2012 22:48 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 22:24 BrTarolg wrote:
Imho it's no different live except you have a way smaller sample size and the players are WAY worse in every way imaginable This is not always true. In Melbourne there is really only one place you can play poker live and that's Crown, everywhere else its pub poker (play money chips). This also means you will end up playing both the best and worst players. Also Crown has the most ridiculous rake so you have to make sure it is worth your time. Aussies are pretty much stuck with tournaments and online poker for the most part. I dunno what its like where you play live, but you have to play a completely different style to online, so imo its completely different. Most of the time you will be playing like a nit because the others don't know the word fold, but occasionally you will get good players at the table and you wanna make it unprofitable for those guys too so they will leave.
As much as i hate to make sweeping statements, i've never in my life seen a tough live game that is anywhere comparable to online
Even tables filled with top regs it's still just them bumhunting some rich fish that sits on the table
Old people are generally terrible at poker in casinos but thats my experience
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
