Higher winrate online?

[VegasRunner]

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?

[Albert Moulton]

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.

[VegasRunner]

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?)

[Twistofsin]

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.

[buckyb88]

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.

[SellingtheDrama]

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.

[jk90029]

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.
***********************************************

[BK1248]

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.

[jk90029]

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.

[VegasRunner]

[ 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.