Why Young Players Are Dominating the World Series of Poker

Two weeks ago, 22-year old Pius Heinz won the 2011 World Series of Poker Main Event. He became the most recent 20-something champion to take down the prestigious title. With the recent string of "barely legal" Main Event champs, one has to wonder if anyone over the age of 25 will ever win the title again. Also, why are the younger players dominating so frequently? Here are a couple of things to consider.

Younger Players Dedicate Their Lives to the Game

Frequently you read stories on Pokerlistings.com and other online news sites talking about young players coming up and playing 60+ hours a week on a regular basis and having poker consume nearly every waking moment.

Younger players have the ability to allow poker to dominate their life in this fashion more so than players in their late 20's, 30's, and beyond. After 25, more and more people are establishing families, careers, and have other interests outside of poker. For players to become and stay truly great, they have to let poker dominate their lives. Younger players are able to get away with this more often than older players.

Younger Players Accustomed to "Modern Era"

Players just now becoming of legal age pretty much only know poker as it is currently played. They may have the knowledge about how poker play used to be, but those modes of playing are not ingrained into their brain like they are in older players. Many older players have trouble adjusting to the ever-changing styles of today's younger players. Younger players adapt to the changes because they are always changing their style. Adapt or die sounds cliche here, but it is appropriate.

Better Concentration, Stamina, and Better Nerves

The other reason is the typical advantage that younger players have over older players. They are stronger, able to last longer during long days, and the ups and downs of the day to day life of being a poker player are tolerated better. Even players like Phil Galfond have admitted they don't have the same nerve they used to when they first were coming up in the game. This allows many players to play without fear and makes them forces at the table.

If you look at any list of online poker rooms and their pros, you will notice that the majority of them are becoming younger and younger. The face of poker's elite is becoming younger, much like the game. While players of all ages will continue to play, and play well, the young will continue to dominate large events like the WSOP Main Event for a long time to come.

Happy Thanksgiving

This is the time of the year where I would ordinarily be thinking about poker.  With the holidays, it's a slower time at work.  In years past I would be looking forward to the WPBT gathering in Las Vegas.  There would be year end bonuses to chase.  

Instead it's turkey and football, which isn't a bad thing.  I even found a few extra dollars that I'd forgotten about that I could use to make a low budget return to the local card room if the fancy strikes.

Many Unhappy Returns

Today is the 5th anniversary of the UIGEA, the first body blow delivered to what is now the corpse of online poker in the United States.

Senator Kyl, Mr. Frist and all the result of the boys:  You still suck.

(h/t Bill Rini)

This Post Needs More MS Paint

As the endless wait continues for our "friends" in Washington to decide that online poker isn't the devil and that society won't collapse if people like to toss around a few electronic cards and win or lose a few dollars, I really have nothing new or interesting to say.  It just happens to be ten minutes to five on a rainy Tuesday afternoon and I'm thoroughly fed up with everything I've been doing, so why not blog.

Lately I've been debating what the wins and losses would be if I simply abandoned the internet.  I don't feel like I spend outrageous amounts of time on twitter, Facebook and other social media sites but I do check them pretty often.  I waste quite a bit of time reading the 2+2 Forums - not so much for the poker strategy but because trolling the idiots who post there is pretty amusing.  There are a few other sites that I read.  All in all the internet consumes a pretty decent chunk of my week.

Back in the day (a hackneyed phrase that I love nonetheless) the internet was a source of profit.  Now, since there isn't any income coming in it's a liability.  Not a major one - I wouldn't save much money if I canceled my domains and my ISP - but an expense nonetheless.

If I abandoned the internet I would certainly be less informed.  I rely on the net for news as well as entertainment and that news includes both "hard" news and Facebook updates about what everybody's kids are up to these days.  I'm not sure it matters.

I would miss interacting with my invisible internet pals, but I'm not sure how much of a hit that would be.  I enjoy y'all but it's not like we talk daily.  Other than a couple folks with local ties I'll probably not see many of the WPBT folks ever again (Las Vegas is not happening in the foreseeable future).

It would not be difficult to fill any time saved.  There is always something.  When I canceled my cable subscription the internet filled the time.  If I surfed less I would probably read more.  There is always something.

I don't make rash decisions - hell, it seems like I hardly make any decisions.  I haven't thought this one all the way through.  But that's what I'm thinking about today.  Honestly, I miss online poker.

No, Full Tilt Wasn't a Ponzi Scheme ... Not That It Matters

The big news of the week obviously is the branding of Full Tilt Poker as a "Ponzi scheme" by the Department of Justice.  The "big lie" technique once again proved effective, landing Full Tilt coverage a leading spot in major news outlets including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

So was Full Tilt a Ponzi scheme?  I would say no, not in the classic sense of the term.  Not even close.

A Ponzi scheme at heart is a simple investment swindle.  A con man takes in money, promising an abnormally high rate of return.  Old investors are paid using money taken in from new investors, with the crook pocketing as much as he can skim.  There is rarely any operating business or actual investment involved, at least beyond whatever facade is necessary to perpetuate the scam.

Full Tilt, on the other hand, was a legitimate, operational, almost certainly profitable business - and it remained so almost up to the end.  Distributions would have been made out of actual revenues.  It is entirely possible that the distributions may have been excessive, but that fact in isolation is neither criminal nor indicative of a Ponzi scheme.  The DOJ conveniently doesn't tell us much about when distributions were made.

In the end game, the rules changed and Full Tilt was not receiving money from new "investors" - to the contrary, it was crediting accounts but not receiving the cash.  Cannibalization of existing assets followed and you get to today.  It's media-friendly to call it a Ponzi scheme but that's it, it's not the truth.  The truth is far more complex.

That said, it doesn't matter.  

At this point, Full Tilt as a viable entity is almost dead.  For U.S. customers it is absolutely dead.  It is possible that some offshore investor might find value in the name and non-U.S. customer base, but it's far more likely in my opinion that the company will end up in liquidation and those assets will be sold piecemeal.

I also think that U.S. customers are going to find it particularly difficult to recover any money even in the case of a last-minute white knight because of the payment processor problem.  How do you fairly compensate player X who "deposited", was never charged any money, and ended up with a balance on the site?  Do you just deduct what was never received?  If so, how is that fair to player Y who had actual money at risk and lost?  It's going to be a mess.

So, in conclusion, RIP Full Tilt, RIP bankrolls, gg online poker.