Are we breeding a whole generation of mediocre poker players?

[dogmeat]

After viewing my statistics for 250,000 hands of online poker I have begun wondering if we are breeding a whole generation mediocre poker players.

In the not too distant past, players learned from watching other players and giving each subtle strategy a try. If they continued learning, then they were able to move up to higher-limit games where they encountered plenty of "fish", but also a few players that exhibited even more advanced play. Yes, there were certain players that seemed to have an inate feel for the game, but if you ask the majority of players in their 50's and 60's (I guess their 70's also to include Doyle, Amarillo etc.), most will probably tell you that the learning process is long, and crucial, for long-term, high quality play.

Although there are terrific books out now, and these forums provide great information, how many players are we leaving behind in the mediocre stage?

I realize that the desire to improve is an individual thing, and certainly there are many players here on 2+2 that have advanced to a high level of play, but as a percentage, how many? How many players are finding internet gaming, learning to multi-table, and then "settling" for just a portion of what they could actually learn (and earn).

If there are 100,000 new (last 12 months) players at online games that have learned to win a little and have moved-on to multi-table, how many will wind up with an overall stunted growth rate? 50%? 80%?

I don't know the number myself, but might hazard a guess that it is close to 75%. Perhaps this is a natural trend and progression of education and learning. Perhaps the number of high-quality, upper-limit players as a percentage of the total number of poker players will be no different than it was 20 years ago, I don't know.

What do you think?

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Isura]

Very interesting topic you bring up. Since it is fairly attainable make a good hourly rate at say Party 3/6 or NL 100 4-tabling, this I imagine appeals to many people you play for a living or just like having some extra income while enjoying the game they love. But regarding truly great players, I think the percentage of 2+2 posters is fairly small (less than 1% I would say). I guess it depends mostly on people's goals and interests. I noticed recently that I had gotten into a rut 4-tabling the small stakes Party ring games. I've gotten interested in SNG's and MTT's so I've decided to focus on those now. My hourly rate is much less and I miss out on bonus whoring but I'm having the time of my life and learning so much. Currently I'm playing 2 tables SNG's or a single table of Stars' low buy-in MTT's. I'm still in college so I don't play for "income", I'm more focused on improving and moving up eventually to the higher limit NL MTT's. There are some fantastic tourney players here at 2+2, it's really an unbelievable free learning tool. I don't think I could stand myself if I didn't push as hard as possible to reach my true poker potential.

[Radio]

ID Agree with this, Iv thought about what your saying, there does seem to be alot people who will just reach 3-6 and multi-table and try and rake in the fish. Iv never really seen the appel of playing more than 2 or 3 tables at a time and quite often will just one table and actually try and improve my game. I think id rather learn to be a better player first before i try to 6 or 8 table. Id rather play 2 tables of 15-30 than 6 at 3-6.

[dogmeat]

I'm much better when I play just a game or two. I played two tables at Paradise this weekend, one tournament and one live and did much better than I have the past few weeks. In fact, I won three (of six) MTT sat's and get to play the $250 buy-in WPT tourny and the $600 buy-in Paradise Million Dollar Tournament in March. It's probably just a coincidence, or maybe I really play poorly when I get more than a couple tables going.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Baulucky]

Irrelevantly small sample size.

[BradleyT]

I'm a programmer for my job. I keep up on new technologies and certificates, etc. because that's what's expected in my field of work.

Should I expect some part-time programmer to do the same? He does it for fun. If he makes something that sells - great! If he cranks out 15 little micro apps a year versus my one major app per year is he to be looked down upon?

[Player12345]

my hat's off to you. i can handle 3-4 tables but have never been able to mix tournament and ring. i don't do well in either when i try this. when i 3 table all ring i can get into this groove where it seems i am making all the right plays. if the cards cooperate it is really almost a zen-type groove i get going. if i open up a sit-n-go, da' groove is gone.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm much better when I play just a game or two.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Mult-tabling does little to help you develop your hand reading skills. I know from personal experience.

[Jurollo]

It was mentioned in this post and in another post about the percentage of players online that have found this little paradise. Lori says maybe 5% of players come here, here it was estimated that it is 1%. The problem in these numbers is that they both estimate total customer base by total signups and members here, when in reality I would venture to guess that only 25% of the members here post regularly and actually read theory posts regularly. Also even by coming here many posters still may come and read threads but practicing them and working on your skills is another thing. I would be interested to know how many copies of pokertracker have been sold, this could lend some more insight into how many of the currently HUGE player pool are taking their game serious and attempting to become better.
~Justin

[tdarko]

the thing is is that mediocre players can still make a profit playing. plus i guess it depends on your definition of what mediocre is, is it how much money you make or how much knowledge of the subject?