live game vs online: is it a completely diffierent game?

[cpk]

Today, right now, I think the key differences are, at least for limit holdem (because that's what I know):

1. People are way looser live. Way, way, way looser, on every street. A relatively tight live 10/20 game would be considered loose even at the Party 2/4 these days.

2. People are far more passive live, though this difference narrows considerably as you increase in limits.

Possible reasons:

1. I do not know for sure, but I think people do not generally turn to online poker just to gamble. They play poker online because they already have some interest in the game. The average online player takes the game much more seriously than the average live player. Live players gamble at poker (at holdem especially) because they know they get more value for their money than they do at blackjack--even if they play holdem very badly.

2. People act more aggressively on the Internet, in general. In chat forums, people say things that would get them knocked out cold if they said them to a stranger in public. This translates to the poker table. A lot of live players play passively because raising--especially check-raising--seems rude. Online, the anonymity takes these feelings away.

3. The faster pace of online poker means that it's easier to be selective. I can't tell you how many live players, bad as they are, know that 82s is not a good hand yet play it anyway because they are "bored" and the hand is "soooted." I don't think this happens as much online. Oh, it definitely happens, but not as much.

4. Many very good players multitable. A good player can only be in one table in a live cardroom. Therefore, your chances of running into a good player multiply online.

5. It's hard, and getting harder, to put money on online sites. This means that newer players are discouraged, and as people bust out, they are not replaced as quickly. My opinion is that the online games are slowly drying up as the poker craze fades a little bit. Not everyone agrees with this, but all you have to do is compare the average Party 2/4 table to the same table 2 years ago. It's night and day. Live games have no such barrier.

The bottom line:

1. There is one key reason why many people are able to beat live games and not online games. The reason is simple: It is far easier to beat looser, passive games than tighter, more aggressive games. Far, far easier. Even if the rake is dramatically higher. It's not anywhere near close.

2. You can read hands more easily live not because you get some random tell, though that often helps. Live players are far more likely to be passive. Passive players are far more predictable. When the third flush card comes and a passive live player check-raises you, you can be fairly sure they have a flush--you can be almost dead certain that your top/overpair is no good.

When your random online player donks you, you are less certain--because online players are more likely to be randomly aggressive. Online 5/10 players will donk J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on a board of A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. Why? Because it's way easier to be aggressive when you can't see your opponents' faces. A typical live passive player would--subconsciously--think such a move to be extremely rude. The same player could very well go online and think it would be extremely funny if donking middle pair caused someone to lay down AK. And it's more likely to be accidentally correct anyway because people tend to be aggressive with stuff like KQ even when they whiff on A-high boards.

This is why reading hands online is harder. This in turn is why playing online is generally harder and takes more skill to do well.

(Sorry that this got to be kinda long, but I enjoyed writing it. Thanks for reading this far. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[tkkjsoup]

The most fun part of this game is picking up live tells, imo. It allows you to be an observer and student of human nature. That is a skill that translates far beyond the felt or the computer screen.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
The most fun part of this game is picking up live tells, imo. It allows you to be an observer and student of human nature. That is a skill that translates far beyond the felt or the computer screen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, though I really like making big pots, which is more conducive to live play these days. Even if I don't always win them, it's fun just building them. I often play in a 12/24 game with $2 chips, and building big pots in that game is very, very satisfying. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[surfinillini]

live game = sexual intercourse

online ring = masturbation

[Ivanizh]

i think not only tells is the difference... you can manipulate your opponents talking them in live game...

i think it's 90° different from online

[AlanBostick]

Online and live games are not completely different. There are differences, some of them significant, but the underlying game is the same.

The single biggest difference, more important than tells, is that you can only play one game at a time in a live cardroom.

From this fact derives many other differences. For example, multitabling means that a working pro can reduce variance by playing many tables at a low limit. To earn the same win rate/100 as she would 4-tabling $5-$10, online, she would have to play $20-$40, and expose herself to four times the variance (twice the SD -- and because live games are slower-paced than online games, her hourly rate would actually be half or less, so she really would want to be playing $40-$80.

This affects the game quality -- tougher players wind up playing lower limits online than they would live, and the game quality changes accordingly.

The next biggest difference is qualitatively huge, because it affects the psychology of the game. Tells aside, the experience of playing live poker against other flesh-and-blood players is a different kind of experience than playing online. Online your play is mediated by the computer, and you only interact through the actual play of the hands and through typed chat. In live poker, you are seeing each other, hearing each other, smelling each other, and so on. It is an intensely social experience, in a way that online play simply is not.

Consequently, the social aspect enters into the people's motivation to play. It means something different to win a large pot from (or lose one to) another person whose reactions and behavior you can directly experience and who can directly experience yours. Tells aside, other players can smell blood in the water in live play in ways that they simply cannot do online.

Flirting, joking, relating, and so on is a much richer experience in live games than online. These things happen online, but the experience is much more limited.

The greater social aspect of live feeds players' social motivations, and so socially-motivated players are more common live than online. And among socially motivated players the average tendency is to want to get along with other people ... and that (if you believe Alan Schoonmaker) puts an additional bias towards passive play into the average playing style.

[mug77]

I don't really know but I do know one thing. I play relativley low stakes online. I do well as I have built up enough of a stack to play with online anyway just from freerolls (which I no longer play because I have a little stack). So right now you are thinking that I like the online game. I am in the green this year so far online with upswings and downswings and this is where I do most of my play. But!!!! I play a boatload of home game tourney's (whenever I can) and I have been in the money about 80%+ (the games are weak but that is ok I will take it). I have also went to the casino twice this year. The first was a tourney at for
$50 with I think 160 ppl. I took 2nd. (when I got HU he flopped 2 pair every time) That alone netted me a huge profit for I am just a low stakes player. The 2nd time I decided to head up one morning whe the casino opened. I brought $300 as the buy in is $100. I had invested $200 by the end but I walked away up $500. I wish I had the bankroll to play there and the time. I feel that I could beat that game because there was a ton of weak players who just didn't know how to play their hands. I took huge advantage and would have won another $200 if I dind't suffer a bad beat.

[jbones]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, most (not all) players who say that "live poker is totally different because of tells" really don't understand where most of the information in poker comes from.

In other words, players who rely a lot on physical tells are often doing so because they are poor analytical hand-readers and have a poor theoretical grasp on the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

agree completely

[LeftyRuggiero]

In regards to small live NLHE games I agree that the biggest difference is players inability to correctly bet their hand. I have saw a $50 bet fly into an $8 pot on more than one occasion in a live game yet, frequently see $15 bets into $200 pots!