[tstrimple]

Yes. But it goes both ways. Online and in person have the same calculations for value, but lacking physical tells you learn to rely on those calculations more. As a result you’ll likely see a lot stronger players online (better at knowing and playing the odds) than an in-person game. This doesn’t even touch on the number of “cheaters” who use assistance online for calculations and bet placement.

Another analogy that might work is chess. I’ve only ever played “classical” chess and when my son got interested in playing I would crush him every time. Up until the point he got into bullet chess and was literally grinding out dozens of games a day where I’d casually play a game of classical chess like once or twice a month. His confidence and ability skyrocketed and I’m not even a challenge for him anymore. Now I’m not a real chess player, and there are areas of his game that are definitely weak compared to classical chess players who have played as many games as he has. But to turn around so quickly from not being able to win a game against me to dominating me in every game was impressive.

[sandspar]

One striking thing about Gen Alpha and young Zoomers is how RAPIDLY they learn. Being young is like being on learning-focused anabolic steroid #1 + online programs and AI are like learning-focused anabolic steroid #2. It's really impressive. Take any "time to learn" estimate you have, like "2 years to become good at chess", and today's young people can slice it by 10x.

[tstrimple]

I agree with that, but one of the core lessons I've learned over my career in technology is that iteration rates are critical for learning. The shorter you can get the feedback loop, the faster you'll learn and advance. Companies that release software once a year or every other year are objectively terrible at it versus companies who release weekly or even daily. Bullet chess and online poker drastically shorten the feedback loop for those games compared to the "traditional" method of playing.