Hello! Judging from Johnny Chan's article about...

[SittingBull]

the first 10 years of poker as being the "formative years" in a professional poker player's life,I assume that MANY MANY young "Pro's" still have a very long way to go before "graduating". [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
SittingBull

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
the first 10 years of poker as being the "formative years" in a professional poker player's life,I assume that MANY MANY young "Pro's" still have a very long way to go before "graduating". [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
SittingBull

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the advent of online will speed that up. Though they likely won't generally be as rounded as back then. the thing is, there's a point where people just stop trying to learn the game. Which is why many old farts you see are so ingrained in their weak tightie play. Sometimes, these players have regressed from actually being decent players. Even if they still read new articles on it. Their habits/comfort zone are just too much to break out of.

Chan played in live games so it took longer to learn than it does now. I think this is the same in most professions, actually. The best, most creative years are the earliest before one settles into the routine rut of their comfort zone.

b

[coffeecrazy1]

Which brings up another question: Is Chan as dangerous as he was in the late 80's?(I have my own opinion, but I want to see discussion)

[TStoneMBD]

of course not, i thought that was common knowledge no?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Which brings up another question: Is Chan as dangerous as he was in the late 80's?(I have my own opinion, but I want to see discussion)

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious why you feel your opinion would prevent a discussion?

My opinion, yes he is but there are more players ahead or even with him now, so his relative skill level has decreased.

[coffeecrazy1]

Just because I don't want it to seem like I'm leaning either direction...I just wanted the question itself to be as objective as possible.