[markksman]

[ QUOTE ]


To us it's absolutely obvious that the best online players are better than the live ones. I think the most logical argument you can have here is that the internet guys play up to 60 times more hands per hour (and usually put in a lot more hours as well). They also have more tools at their disposal to analyse/learn (hand histories, PokerTracker, PokerStove, forums). Wouldn't it be absurd if, despite that, the live pros would be better? Something would have to be horribly, horribly wrong for that to be true. How can someone debate this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen Barry Greenstein address this on this site. His argument is that the caliber of player you play against is much more important than how many hands you played. Playing 500,000 hands against inferior opponents is not going to make you better.

Think about it this way... Someone who played 500,000 hands of micro limits online is not necessarily going to be better than someone who has played 100,000 hands of nosebleed limits, right?

You need to actually play against better players to improve your game. Hand analysis is only worth so much. So the question becomes are there the caliber of players on either or both sides to make one or the other better just from the competition.

I have my own thoughts on the debate, but suffice it to say,I think the online and live games are very different creatures, and why there is so much trouble determining who has the biggest willy.

If numbers of hands and analysis was all that it took to master poker, than you could just spend a few years playing on freeplay tables, go over all the hands 80 hours a week, and soon you would be crushing everyone. You don't really think that would be possible, do you?