[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be fair Gavin in one of the recent shows gave the online players a lot of credit and basically called them sick good.
I think he even remarked that he was a little scared.
My impression is that it's actually more Sebok who doesn't really understand or respect the online players and online poker in general.

That they don't, unlike the online cash games players, consider live tournament players complete donks, shouldn't really be all that suprising.

But I agree that it is a little embarrassing sometimes how ignorant they come across regarding the online poker world.
Scott Huff and Haralabob too, who I really like btw, I think he one time, wouldn't even acknowledge online poker as "real poker".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's the online players who don't get it. Although I like to rattle the cage of the young players, the truth is we are all poker players, but the young ones honed their craft on the Internet, because that is the place you can play a lot of poker nowadays.

In a live setting, these players need to learn the differences and I'm sure they will. In a live setting, the live pros are currently better, but some people misjudge this because the online players are mostly nolimit holdem specialists, as I was when I was in my twenties. It's hard to beat a good specialist at his game.

Phil Ivey and Patrik are the two biggest online winners of the last few years, and they learned poker live. David Benyamine is extremely good, but he puts himself in bad situations. Gus does things live that don't work as well when he plays online.

I think as a generalization I would say the online players are technically superior in nolimit holdem, but lack the feel.

I have only seen two young players who have good all around games: Nich Schulman and Mike McKenna (madcaddy). There were many so-called internet players in the HORSE tournament, but none even made it in the money.

Of course, I always put my money where my mouth is in the form of a crossbook, and I think I'm a favorite in a big live tournament against any of the young guns. I'm just glad Brian Townsend didn't put Durrr on his crossbook team as I expected him to.


Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

Barry, Do you think that the proposed scenario of having the top 20 of both live/online players compete in an online and live tourney would prove anything? They had mentioned it on the show and to me I don't believe that would prove anything at all. It's still just too small of a sample. Would 50 tourneys in each setting be a good enough sample? 100?

I have an idea for a tourney series.
$10M per team - 2 teams, online and live, 20 per team
50 Tourneys online and 50 live (so you get a semi-good sample)
1/2 prizepool goes to individual tourney's, 1/2 to overall team structure - so this way each person is competing against everyone, not just opposite team (no team play like Pokerbowl, though)
Per Tourney payout (assuming $10M per team)
1st - $55k
2nd - $20k
3rd - $15k
4th - $10k

Then with the team payout the winning team would split the remaining $10M. Scoring for teams would be as follows (least amount of total points wins)
1st - 1 point
40th - 40 points

Obviously this would only work if people had the time and resources to play as it would be $200k per person and to play 100 tournaments in addition to what people normally play would be difficult, but I think if the amount of money is high enough it could happen.