This is a discussion on Old school vs new school within the online poker forums, in the General Poker section; Today that players are one step ahead. Old school (Daniel Negreanu, Phil Ivey, etc) or new school (Linus Loeliger, Adrian Mateos, etc)?
The new school has an advantage over the old school because it has thousands upon thousands of hands played in online poker.
Most of the old school are live players, and live cannot be played at several tables at the same time, instead online, you can play at many tables, and that gives you more experience, so the new school has more advantage , players like bencb789, sasuke234, isidlur1, amadi17, Linus Loeliger, etc.
Poker is much more influenced by mathematics today which makes the game much more dependent on skill than luck (at least on higher levels). As new players today we have the advantage to be able to use wide variety of useful information (books, videos, courses and so on) which simply did not exist 10 or more years ago. And 50 years ago when the really old school players like Doyle Brunson played there was not a single book for poker and the only way to learn was by trial and error approach. We are very lucky to play in this new era of poker.
Yeah, I felt so old. Since my childhood, I have watched rare TV shows with the final tables of poker tournaments, when Dan Harrington, Gus Hansen, Doyle Brunson were considered players of the old school, who gradually lost their positions to the New school, representatives of which were just Negreanu and Phil Ivey, who played an unusual for that time progressive poker.
And now, many years later, they are old-school players. Even though I'm not 30 yet!
To answer the question, the new school will always be a little ahead, because they bring new ideas, new solutions and new strategies to poker, and the old school always has to go along with the updated principles of the game in order not to be left out of the game.
But there are poker basics that you can always follow to stay a winning player regardless of any changes in poker.
If old school or new school definatly depends on the single player, you cant say that in general.
But one thing. Phil Ivey is in my eyes the sickest player on earth. I don´t want to sound like a Fanboy. Hard to think about someone better than him
I think the new school of players has an advantage over the old players. Poker today with the boom in online poker, brought new players to a technical analysis and understanding of the game that I personally think puts them way ahead of others.
I see that new school plays with a much wider range. Meaning that they could push old school off hands better. However, if you stick to small ball poker, I think you can win more with old school tactics in live poker. In tournaments at least. Because you survive longer and will take down new school players when they get too fancy. So long as they don't peg you as a passive player. Poker today is a lot more complicated. I try to learn from it, but I am comfortable with my old school style - and really enjoy watching the pros who continue to play old school.
I am not sure the two schools bear much comparison to each other.
Older style players had an intuition which I am not sure is matched in today's game. But, they cannot beat either the volume or studying that comprises the modern game. The modern players are unquestionably technically more sound.
Citing Negreanu as a player who spans both does not cut it for me. Negreanu does not compete regularly at the highest levels because he knows his game will not stand up to that competition. He picks and chooses where and when he plays outside of the WSOP which is smart and plus EV.
If looking for someone who still competes at the highest level after decades playing I would nominate Erik Seidel. That said even he has dialed his schedule back and has been quite open about looking ahead to the possibility the newer generation will so regularly outplay him he might withdraw from the high rollers completely.
Apart from Seidel, the only other I would pose as being truly competitive from the old school is Phil Ivey. He has a heady mixture of intuition and degen gambler. When on a roll he is fearless.
All that said, I honestly think old school does not hold a candle to new school, but this does not mean old school is without merit.
I think the old school is held up mainly because of its reputation. Since there are simply no new famous players from the old school. There are old people who hold on. The game of poker is constantly evolving, which means players must
It is always new school, meta game for poker is dynamic. What we do today will be different than 5 years from now. What worked now can be exploited by a new model. That being said, what works for 1 level would not make any sense at another level of play. 1/2NL 150BB is vastly different than say 100/200NL 300BB deep.
Pluribus already show that they are different ways to play. And if the meta game shift I am sure AI will find new exploits.
I don't think Daniel Negreanu and Phil Ivey are old school ...
Negreanu and Ivey both started their careers before online poker existed. Therefore by definition they are old school as the metric we use is those who developed their game in casinos/card rooms as opposed to those who built their skills online.
That has nothing to do with whether they have transitioned, or remain competitive. Seidel, Negreanu and Ivey all remain competitive to degree but none of them compete with the same regularity in high rollers such as the likes of Chidwick, Kenney and Koon etc.