Modern Poker Theory Or Oldschool?

[SteveAsh7]

Both can be good depending on what kind of opponent you're playing against but which one do you prefer to implement into your play-style?

 

[hobojim1247]

I prefer to observe my opponent and then exploit his mistakes, which was old school when the poker pioneers did it and is now considered modern when a newly does it. The question is akin to asking if you prefer to run the football or pass the football. The reality is if you do only one of them and not both you will be a loser.

 

[Alex70793]

I think it depends on the game you win.
In cash games, especially at high limits, you will not be able to win by playing the old way.
In tournaments, everything goes the same way, stacks are decreasing, blinds are growing, there is little room for maneuver, so the tight-aggressive style of play still wins.

 

[SteveAsh7]

I prefer to observe my opponent and then exploit his mistakes, which was old school when the poker pioneers did it and is now considered modern when a newly does it. The question is akin to asking if you prefer to run the football or pass the football. The reality is if you do only one of them and not both you will be a loser.

I agree, mixing it up and being unpredictable is the best way to play poker IMO.

 

[Newmy12345]

I think a combination of them both would be perfect. Most people think that older people wouldnt know or apply new poker ideas including the software etc. But a good poker player is always a smart person so they will always adapt to improve their game regardless of the age

 

[siberianspecial]

this is relative, I think the main thing is your own style of play, it can be a mix, it can be just one of them, in short, there is no exact option. There are rounds that I see the oldschool working easily, but when you change a blind or after a table change, everything is different, and you also need to change.

 

[SteveAsh7]

I think a combination of them both would be perfect. Most people think that older people wouldnt know or apply new poker ideas including the software etc. But a good poker player is always a smart person so they will always adapt to improve their game regardless of the age

Yes i agree with you 100% here! All good poker players need to evolve and keep up with modern poker. Using some of the oldschool tricks too. You see players like Phil Hellmuth struggle because he's stuck in the past.

this is relative, I think the main thing is your own style of play, it can be a mix, it can be just one of them, in short, there is no exact option. There are rounds that I see the oldschool working easily, but when you change a blind or after a table change, everything is different, and you also need to change.

hmmmm i guess.. I agree with you on the table change but i think implementing both strategies is a winning formula myself.

 

[rastapapolos]

Adaptation is the key, as a poker player you can't just have one approach and stick to it. It depends on the opponents profiles, table limits and many other factors. I like to mix things up, playing the players not the cards or theory, but against good regs I do genrally play GTO

 

[greenlarrow]

I like the old school, but in the current realities it does not work. Now more aggressive poker

 

[zaxxorr]

GTO as baseline strategy, and adjust based on player tendencies to exploit them is the best way to approach the game. You can't go outside the box if you never been inside it.

 

[SteveAsh7]

I like the old school, but in the current realities it does not work. Now more aggressive poker

Nah bro, some oldschool does work. Being overly aggressive non-stop is not the way. What if you have 9/6 suited and the flop is K99. You telling me you're gonna bet or trap the player and check with your three of a kind set? I think mixing it up and being unpredictable is the best way personally but we all have our own styles.

 

[amartimes]

not sure what's difference, gotta learn both

 

[greenlarrow]

Nah bro, some oldschool does work. Being overly aggressive non-stop is not the way. What if you have 9/6 suited and the flop is K99. You telling me you're gonna bet or trap the player and check with your three of a kind set? I think mixing it up and being unpredictable is the best way personally but we all have our own styles.

Yes, I'm not saying that all hands play aggressively. It's just that the players in general have become more aggressive.

 

[Majaloja]

Poker is like a car on the rise, you must always study and adapt to new situations to move forward, if you don't stay without advancing or worse, you come backwards on the hill.

 

[SteveAsh7]

Yes, I'm not saying that all hands play aggressively. It's just that the players in general have become more aggressive.

Yes that's for sure, there's always a fish at the table but nowadays there's always a couple of really aggressive players too i get what you mean. In general more players do tend to go with this style.

 

[ratbat615]

I prefer to observe my opponent and then exploit his mistakes, which was old school when the poker pioneers did it and is now considered modern when a newly does it. The question is akin to asking if you prefer to run the football or pass the football. The reality is if you do only one of them and not both you will be a loser.i

I prefer to observe my opponent and then exploit his mistakes, which was old school when the poker pioneers did it and is now considered modern when a newly does it. The question is akin to asking if you prefer to run the football or pass the football. The reality is if you do only one of them and not both you will be a loser.

True you can’t have one Style of playing . It depends on the situation poker is a game that you have to Adopt to the situation.

 

[SteveAsh7]

True you can’t have one Style of playing . It depends on the situation poker is a game that you have to Adopt to the situation.

No it's suicide to have one style of poker, you defo need to adapt to the situation and play both IMO.

 

[fundiver199]

I dont think, those terms are particularly usefull, since what was considered "modern" just a few years ago, might be considered "old-school" now. The more interesting definition is balanced (GTO) vs. exploitative play. A balanced strategy is for ensuring, that you dont get exploited by good opponents, so its like a football team having a strong goalkeeper and a strong defense. Exploitative play on the other hand is for creating the maximum winrate against bad opponents, so its like a football team having strong attackers.

Ideally you want to have both, but an important point is to understand, that in order to exploit opponents (deviate from GTO) its usually nessesary to have at least some kind of idea about, what the baseline is, that you are deviating from. A simple example can be a preflop push-fold spot, where maybe you think, the opponent is on the tight side, so you want to call him tighter as well. Thats a good adjustment, but if you dont know the NASH equilibrium (GTO ranges), its difficult to figure out, what a proper adjustment is, and you might end up making bigger mistakes, than if you had played the equilibrium range. Maybe you are supposed to call down to AT in the equilibrium, but you end up folding AQ, which might be an overadjustment, even if the opponent is on the tighter side.

 

[lilypond]

I tend to go for modern poker theory as poker and playing styles have evolved a lot in recent times. Play is more aggressive nowadays.

However, Oldschool classics such as Sklansky's Theory of Poker provide an invaluable foundation for beginners and most of the ideas and strategies are still relevant today.