Which Format is Best for Going Pro? (Online and B&M) - Page 3

El_Hombre_Grande · #1 04-12-2007, 04:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think that's an important contributor to the effect, but it's not the only story. My working hypothesis is that it's also because merely playing online shows an enthusiasm for the game that B&M players do not generally have. A lot of B&M players play poker merely to drink and socialize and gamble in a way that is relatively low-intensity--this continues up to quite a high limit, I've seen it even in 20/40. This "social player" does not exist online. Therefore, I hypothesize that the average online player will do more to educate himself towards proper play than a B&M player will.

This is just a bunch of psychobabble on my part.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you are right. there are often "slot monkey" mentalities at a 10/20 or even higher at B & Ms, and almost never on line. VPIP at local 10/20 limit games weekend nights I think exceeds party .50/$1. Its just so damned slow and the rakes so damned high, comparatively speaking.

Voltaire · #2 04-17-2007, 01:53 AM

"A lot of B&M players play poker merely to drink and socialize and gamble in a way that is relatively low-intensity--this continues up to quite a high limit, I've seen it even in 20/40. This "social player" does not exist online. Therefore, I hypothesize that the average online player will do more to educate himself towards proper play than a B&M player will."

I also agree, although there are some social players online.
Social players like the atmosphere of being in a club, they like having a dealer and somebody waiting on them; they like the massage and being with other people. The games are definitely easier to beat, but beware of slow games and bad fish (I mean the kind served from the kitchen--that can be VERY distracting).

rwanger · #3 01-05-2006, 09:44 AM

It's good to get to know different formats (SNG's, MTT's, full ring, shorthanded), but my path seemed to ultimately land me at Short Handed NL. Once you know what you're doing, multi-table (I do 2-4) and you'll be at hundreds of hands per hour...10x what you'd see in a live game. You'd have to play MUCH higher stakes in a live game to be able to approach what you can make multitabling shorthanded games on the net.

That being said, at comparable stakes, players seem to be MUCH better online. Still definately beatable, but you'll have to pay attention and be able to make moves (200nl and up). Live 200nl (and ESPECIALLY 100nl) will often be boring because the best strategy is to just sit around and wait for good cards.

I haven't played a lot of full ring nl games, so I can't vouch for their level of profitability...but short handed is MUCH more exciting and engaging IMO.

Banks2334 · #4 01-05-2006, 10:27 PM

Whoa, whats the rush. Everyone is always in a hurry to "go pro". Its good that you are asking these questions, but at the same time it shows your inexperience. Studying is great, but not the cure all. What works for some may not work for you. Study and play, play play. Find what works for you and take your time.

Tony_P · #5 01-05-2006, 10:58 PM

"Negative. A large swing in limit might be 300 bb. That is what 6 buy ins at NL. 6 buy ins is not considered a large swing in NL. "

I was just going to call you an idiot and move on, but Let's examine your logic:

A 300 BB swing in limit is 6 buy-in as NL, which is not a big deal.

In 1/2 Limit that is a $600 swing. In NL, a $600 swing that is 6 buy-ins would be a $100 buy-in game, meaning .5/1 Blinds (usually) .5/1 NL is a higher-stakes game than 1/2 Limit. Do you see why you're wrong?

Frequency · #6 01-06-2006, 12:23 AM

I was just going to call you an idiot and move on, but Let's examine your logic:

A 300 BB swing in limit is 6 buy-in as NL, which is not a big deal.

In 1/2 Limit that is a $600 swing. In NL, a $600 swing that is 6 buy-ins would be a $100 buy-in game, meaning .5/1 Blinds (usually) .5/1 NL is a higher-stakes game than 1/2 Limit. Do you see why you're wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have not proved anything. Variance is still greater at no limit.

Tony_P · #7 01-06-2006, 01:59 AM

What a f*cking retard you are. Did you come to this site to learn something or just act like a moron?

DcifrThs · #8 01-06-2006, 02:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What a f*cking retard you are. Did you come to this site to learn something or just act like a moron?

[/ QUOTE ]

here's the thing, he may act like a moron, and be unable to logically defend his statement, but in today's online NL games, from many different great players' perspectives, the variance compared to limit is greater. period.

the reason is because of the large all in bets/bluffs/calls that are now commonplace in that area, combined with the lack of tells other than betting patterns and speeds online (where good pros can seriously reduce variance by eliminating large calls or winning pots that wouldn't have been theirs). and the frequency therein. what is a good stdev in bb/100 hands at limit? i know "good" is like 15-16 and excellent is below that.

what about NL in PTBB/100 hands?? its like more than double that, like 35-45 from what i know. now i may be wrong here and you can correct me if i am but from what i understand, PTBB is 2xthe big blind. so if you play 20/40 limit you suffer 40*15-16 swings per hundred hands on average. at NL, you suffer 40*35-45 at 10/20 blinds.

clearly, if my understanding of poker tracker estimations of the variance in the above games is correct, variance is now way larger in no limit than in limit.

Barron

Frequency · #9 01-06-2006, 02:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Negative. A large swing in limit might be 300 bb. That is what 6 buy ins at NL. 6 buy ins is not considered a large swing in NL. "

I was just going to call you an idiot and move on, but Let's examine your logic:

A 300 BB swing in limit is 6 buy-in as NL, which is not a big deal.

In 1/2 Limit that is a $600 swing. In NL, a $600 swing that is 6 buy-ins would be a $100 buy-in game, meaning .5/1 Blinds (usually) .5/1 NL is a higher-stakes game than 1/2 Limit. Do you see why you're wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

.5/1 NL has the same blinds as 1/2 limit so they are the same stakes. What ever game requires more of a bankroll has more variance. I find you rude and if you clearly think I am wrong, show me.

Nomad84 · #10 01-06-2006, 02:57 AM

I've always been under the impression that when people said that NL has lower variance than limit, what they really meant was that for stakes that will produce approximately the same winrate, NL will have the lower variance. In other words, even though .5/1NL has the same blinds as 1/2 limit, they are not considered to be "equivalent" because a good NL player will be able to win much more at .5/1NL than a good limit player will at 1/2 limit. The rough equivalent to 1/2 limit might be .25/.5NL, for instance. In that case, it's more fair to compare the variance of 1/2 limit to the variance of .25/.5NL. I don't play NL, so I am not sure that this is accurate, but that's what I've taken out of the variance comparisons. Is this correct, Tony?