[VitoT]

[ QUOTE ]
I kinda hate these threads but how can you keep away?

The one core fact that I think should be kept in mind in the internet v. live players argument is that, at least until recently, the money was WAY better online than live unless you were playing like 4k-8k.

When Rugby was playing mega stakes live not long ago he said in his blog that one reason he disliked live was that he could play for effectively more money in much greater comfort online. And he meant it.

So if online poker is potentially more profitable, the burden is on the live players to explain why they are taking the lower paying route. In the absence of any contrary explanation it seems reasonable to assume that either the live players need softer games, or they're not that serious about money.

That's why it annoys the hell out of me when some live player says some [censored] like "YO MR. ONLINE WHY DON'T YOU COME DOWN TO MY 50/100 GAME AND SHOW ME WHAT'S WHAT" when the online player in question might be used to multitabling 200/400.

It's like one boxer calling another boxer out to play thumb war.

However all that being said, it does seem like online poker is drying up to the point that there is or will be more EV in reasonably high live games than in online games. (Assuming no change on the legal front.)

So it is less and less fair to view live players with the air of skepticism bordering on disdain that many of us used to.

A few years ago if you played live only you pretty much had to be a mediocre player or someone who didn't care about maximizing his EV. In the near future the live players may be the ones booking the biggest yearly wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

wake up, the biggest online NL game today, for 6-max is 25/50, and there aren't even many people who can efford this game, if you count all the online poker players, the only NL games u can find bigger then 25/50 are the HU games, which is super selective and waiting for tie53 guys type. There are millions of people, both amatures and proffesionals, but the thing is that most of this kiddos who rised very quick, were down very quick as well, and now they can't efford the biggest, or the bigger games, they used to play, and there are plenty examples. and that's because poker is much more then just analyticall abilities, and includes so many other aspects, that maybe even more important.
And the biggest games played online, PLO/fixed games are totally dominated by the live players, and yes, i also think Antonius is a live player, cause he learnd his basics live, and wasn't some college kid who reads 2+2 all day. and yes, live pro's has aspects in there games, managment abilities(not just bankroll managment) which most of the online players won't ever have.
The problem with there internet kids, that all they care is money, they talking all day about money - "money,money, money" , "i have to make some more money", "i'm playing just for money", they don't care about competition, challenge and pride.
For most of all i have respect to Patrik Antonius, Phil ivey, Gus Hansen (Sammy Farha, Chip Reese, and some other, live players), because they are whilling to play anyone, anywhere, anytime, any stakes, cause they like the competition, the challenge, and for them it's about pride. I can only say it about LarsLuzak right now, who is an online player, and about few other online players which aren't playing the biggest games online these days, as they used to for a short period of time.
I'm not talking here about "tournaments pros", but about best live cash game players compered to best online cash players.
As i see it, from, an absolute online cash game player, point of view, live cash game players (at least the best ones), does having much better attitude, and understading the whole concept of poker, rather then just a mathematical abilities. They just understand some aspects of the game which most of the online players even the toppest, won't understand for a long time, if at all. And that is the main reason why these players are for so long, playing the biggest cash games in the world.