|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Higher winrate online?
I've long believed that playing poker live is much easier than playing online. At any given level, online players are just better. (1-2 nl live is a joke compared to 1-2 nl online.)
Living in Vegas, I have access to live games whenever I want. I always assumed that I'm better off playing live, but given the other benefits of playing online (lower rake, more hands an hour, ect.) i'm wondering if I make more dropping down a level or two and playing online? Thoughts? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Higher winrate online?
I guess it depends on where your strengths are.
Live, you get physical tells. But on-line you have statistical analysis tools. Live you get one table at a time. On-line you get as many tables as your monitor can fit. Live you'll see less hands per table per hour than on-line. Live you have lots of low-to-moderate-skilled "gamblers," some of whom will be drinking, who are all willing to lose money as an entertainment expense, especially in Vegas. On-line you have less of these low-to-moderate-skilled "gamblers," very few of whom will be drinking, and many of whom will be multi-tabling with statistical support software. Overall, I suspect that on-line will have a lower win rate per table per hour, but when you multiply that times the number of tables that you play your $/hr rate may or may not beat your live $/hr rate at a higher buy-in level. So, try both for a while, and go where you make the most money. If you didn't live close to a 24hr/7-day a week card room, then on-line would be a no-brainer. But I suspect that live games might actually make more money for you on an hourly basis given where you live. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Higher winrate online?
Thanks Albert.
Has anyone compared their hourly rates and decided that one is better? Is a balance of both best? (Perhaps playing online is worthwhile even at a lower hourly rate because the stat tools can fix your leaks and therefore improve your B & M hourly rate. Make sense?) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Higher winrate online?
Online definitely has more profit potential if you can join enough games. My live win rate is roughly double my online for similar games, but I can play 4-8 tables online.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Higher winrate online?
I think a balance of both is honestly the best. I try to play 60% online and 40% live. Playing online keeps my game sharp, while playing live keeps me sane.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Higher winrate online?
Over my playing history, my win rates are higher live assuming I do a decent job of game selection - on an hourly basis. I suck at multitabling, I never got over four comfortably and to play my best I couldn't play more than three.
I do expect though that someone who can play 3-4x that many tables profitably stands a very reasonable chance of being a larger winner online vs live. I don't play big (by my standards) money online anymore, I just use it as relaxation. Live I'm playing for keeps. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Higher winrate online?
Although my total record of winning/loss is not so hugh, in online and B&M, there is a comparison in my personal case.
B$M hourly rate = about $20 Online hourly rate < $10 My record shows that we pay about $25 per hour for hourly rake at B&M no-limit table. However in online, we pay about $5 per hour in SINGLE table. So if we play 5 tables simultaneously in online, then its hourly rake is almost same as B&M. Although online rake is cheaper than B&M, more profit in B&M than online, in my personal case. Everybody shows your result, please. But I keep playing to collect online data by PokerTracker for changing my play style and attitude. Still I have less than 10K hands online. ************************************************* Let me guess the true rate of winners in the long run, although nobody can say it for sure, except God. B&M Players with hourly rate higher than $20 might be 20% ~ 30%, in the long run. Online Players with BB/100 higher than 3 might be 20% ~ 30%, in the long run. Please say your rough estimate, if you spent some years in playing. *********************************************** |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Higher winrate online?
Bottom line is playing live is a joke, but online is more profitable per hour. But to me 2 hours of online play =s 8 hours of live play. Live is so easy to sit there for 8-10 hours and watch these idiots make dumb plays and enjoy the atmosphere, but online is intense and u have to actually think and get frustrated. Although, I maybe burnt out a lil online since i have about 2 milion hands over the last 6 years.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Higher winrate online?
2000K hands for 6 years? so 4700 hours playing in one year, based on average 70 hand per hour. You must be a professional.
If you played 28200 hours for the last six years, then you spent about $141K of total (6 years) rake, based on hourly rake of $5. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Higher winrate online?
[ QUOTE ]
But I keep playing to collect online data by PokerTracker for changing my play style and attitude. [/ QUOTE ] This is what I'm starting to think. Even if online is a lower hourly winrate, I might be better off playing about 20% of my time online just to use something like pokertracker to plug up some leaks. In the long run, it might be worth my while. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|