How Poker Has Changed Over The Years

Daniel Negreanu recently wrote an entry for his blog where he explains the differences between winning poker players of today and of years past. It’s a very interesting read, and Negreanu definitely has lived in both worlds which gives him the chops to comment on the subject, and while I agree with almost everything he states there are a few points I slightly disagree with, or feel need a bit more clarification.

To summarize Daniel’s opinions:

1.      Old School tournaments favored pre-flop play where today’s deep-stack format favors post-flop skills

2.      Poker players, in general, were less skilled in days past

3.      Older players haven’t been able to adjust to the new styles that have come into the game

As for the first point, this is something that has always bothered me. When people say, “the deeper the stack the more skill is involved.” It’s simply a false statement. Yes the deeper your stack the more you have to lose from poor decisions, but it doesn’t make the game more skillful; it’s just a different set of skills that come into play!

I compare the current poker climate to Baseball in the dead-ball era. Rule changes -in the case of poker larger starting stacks, longer levels, and the slower escalation of blinds-that favor small-ball poker players are currently Standard Operating Procedure: Similar to how the dead-ball era had larger ballparks, wider strike zones, and a higher pitcher’s mound that gave pitchers the advantage over the hitters in baseball.

It’s not that old school poker players aren’t skillful; their skill-sets just don’t equate well to today’s tournament structures. Just like a slugger from the dead-ball era might hit 100 home runs in baseball were they to play today.

On to point two: This is definitely the case. There is simply too much information about poker -and easy, free, access to that information-for even the most casual poker players to be ignorant of the game’s basic strategies and concepts.

The final point he makes is the most interesting in my view, but he doesn’t seem to explain it all that well other than saying older players are unwilling to adjust their play -an unwillingness to learn. I think the real key is not so much changing the way you play, but more respecting and understanding what the other players are doing.

I’ll use another sports analogy here: Michael Jordan is considered the best basketball player of all-time, but for a 7-footer to emulate his play is ridiculous. These players simply have different skill-sets and will not play the same way. BUT, it’s important for the 7-footer to know Jordan’s skills, tendencies, and weaknesses to best compete against him.

So even if you don’t have the stones, or emotional control, to pull off the ultra-loose/aggressive strategy, you should still be aware of how the players utilizing this strategy think, and not just dismiss the style as “loose cannon poker”.

Negreanu uses two players as examples for his blog entry, TJ Cloutier and Phil Hellmuth. Both players have incredible results, but have been putting up extremely lackluster results in recent years. Negreanu thinks it’s because they can’t adapt, but there are other players who implement an old-school strategy with good results. I think the real reason for their struggles is their unwillingness to just ACCEPT that the other styles of play are viable, and not every good player will think and act like they do.

The problem I see with Daniel’s blog entry is that he is going from one extreme to the other, basically saying the only winning strategy now is the small-ball strategy, and the only winning strategy in the past was the push/fold method. But if you look at the best players they are able to seamlessly transition from one to the other, depending on the dynamics of the game.