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.
If were comparing new school you mean the online beasts vs old school live players depends where there playing,if online advantage goes to the online pro's,if there playing live advantage goes to old school,playing online they have tools that they use ,when live its just them big advantage to old school,all that time behind a screen doesn't help you when you play live and interact who knows what tells they have that their not aware of
I’m from the old school of poker, I believe that the right thing is to play believe your intuition, enter the table just to win, and break the parameters of the probability, and most importantly respect the whether you are a veteran or a novice.
Nowadays technology has removed the romanticism that poker has. Playing online is not the same as playing live. There are two different poker categories, although with the same rules.
I prefer to play live, but I understand that playing online allows me to see flops.
I think similarly, it is an other mainstream connected, let's divide something what obviously useless, pointless, except you want to divide and conquer. It is not the case in poker.
I also think live and online the 2 categories what you can make, if it is very necessary. Especially, all the posts here focus for 2 things:
1., technology, tools, 'education' stuff - everything was given before black friday, a decade ago, when the poker was on the top, both live and online. (Otherwise all these are available nowadays, too, to anyone, and it is not atom physics, that cannot adopt, especially by individuals whose in the main flow since decades, obviously, if something significantly changes to better direction, and the given individual do not adopt it, he will disappear... common sense, as it is about money, especially on high stakes, what players they mentioned above... like business world, if you can't survive, beat the rest, you will disappear, soon...)
2., The few decade long sponsored characters, whose stayed in the focus, mostly because they are connected to any room, they are face of a site. So average poker player do not know anyone else. Meantime, the live tourneys 10-15 years ago was full with characteristhic players, you had plenty options to watch it, as even it was popular in television, plenty sports channels' night program was all the time poker, example, and not only night.
Next to the biggest live events, plenty smaller - still huge - were held all around the world. Also online, you had more rooms, players, options to choose where and what you play
I do not think so it is worth to try comparing or dividing, what you can't, as it makes no sense, at least, not for me.
"The motherf*ckers got in my head Trying to make me someone else instead"
"Saint Anger 'round my neck He never gets respect F*ck it all and no regrets!" - St. Anger, Metallica
Regardless of new or old school, what really matters is the results. I think that a "hybrid" way of playing where we can use a little of each modality, whether new or old, to obtain maximum efficiency and effectiveness in the results of the tournaments.
'Old school" players adapt and learn as well, or they disappear. I think that, especially in live games, the old school players hold a small edge in that their 'reads' can make the correct decision over the math more often than not.
__________________ The Lucky/Muckers 2.0 Fall Season <3
The old school has to be respected, without these names we would never have poker with the status it has today. But poker is constantly evolving, the old school folks wouldn't keep up with the younger ones, wouldn't keep 20 tables at the same time with the same performance, as well as in a one-on-one clash, without software and all the trappings of online professionals, I certainly believe these names like Negreanu and Doyle Brunson, they would do better.