[stephenNUTS]

[ QUOTE ]
I've played a good amount of high-stakes live poker. The majority of live players over-rate themselves because they're used to playing such ridiculously soft lineups (like the average 10-20 NL game online is way tougher than the 9-handed 25-50 to 100-200-400 games I've played). Now I don't have extensive history with the absolute best and I do believe that online players are probably likely to underrate how good certain players are at live NLHE and making reads.

Still, at the end of the day the majority of well-respected live players if you listen to them talk about what they were thinking during a hand, are so ridiculously incapable of critically analyzing hands that the thought of them being better than elite online players is absurd (here I'm mainly talking about the older generation. There are young players who play mainly live who I have a lot of respect for but I don't think Kenny would put in his top 20).

Long story short, give any elite online player a month of constant live NL experience and if they haven't killed themselves from boredom they'll be able to dominate most live pros. And then once they figure out all the reverse tells that will totally baffle live pros who assume no online player could ever do something so tricky, it's game over.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWF,

As a mostly LIVE player...I would tend to agree with you that IMO the "BEST"(and they are just a few) on-line players with the proper time period adjustments would do QUITE well in live cash game scenerio's over the long haul after adapting to to 9/10 handed FR games,slower play,less hands per hour,etc.

As to how much/often they win ...I would assume good ole' variance would be a big factor?

SF [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]