Why do Internet players think they're so much better than live players

[johnc]

I believe the "average" online player is much better than the "average" live player because for the most part online players, even the mediocre ones, play more for the game and less (much less) for the social aspect. This applies mostly to low-stakes. The online industry targets their advertising towards signing up to their site to "improve your game". Free poker books are offered as motivators to make deposits. Combine that with sites such as 2+2 that attract the internet player and I believe there is an atmosphere created that seems to surround internet poker with the whole concept of improving one's game through study and experience. Your common low-stakes player, on the otherhand, most likely is there to enjoy the social interaction at the table. Sure there's some serious people there but with the typical amount of laughing and talk it's easy to see that improving one's game is really not a top priority for most.

[tendog]

I played alot of live tourney poker when i was younger.
i assumed i was good simply because i had two big cashes when i first started playing. so basically i traveled to vegas, AC played all the tournies assuming i was a winner.

so i lost quite a bit and decided i could make easy monies playing poker on the interwebs.
so playing online i got to play a huge number of tournies and judging from my results i came to the realization that i was not very good.

basically after that i read every book i could etc.
so over my last 1800 tournies i know i have decent results like a 40 percent ROI which is not great but not aweful either.

so when i start to play live again at least in my mind i will be fairly confident that im a winning player.

so yeah i think online players are better, the winning ones anyway. mostly because you cant really fool yourself. the winnning players have played enough poker to be fairly confident that they are winners.

[theman]

When I played online, I thought I was the best player alive mainly because I was sitting behind closed doors without a clue about how live games worked. I ASSUMED the play was the same and that I'd be just as successful. Little did I know at the time, that the game was completely different and the players often much better (at the higher levels).

Low level poker, whether live or internet, is the same. Same donkeys. Middle to Upper level poker stakes is different. The players with the most complete game (physical reads, strategy, emotional control etc.) will always win live. The internet players cannot compete with live players in the middle to higher level games, because they don't have that complete package.

-TheMan

[wickedgoodtrader]

Internet players are better. I used to play live when i turned 18 and played for 3 years with some online too so I built some B&M experience. Went pretty much straight online for the 4 years and did well. Until last year I start playing cash online and killed the 5-10NL game for 200k. The games have dried up now with the shutdown of neteller and so forth and I was pissed thinking.. damn.. now my opportunity to make big bucks is down the shitter.

As any pro does, I adjusted and dropped limits and so forth and the games still sucked so I decided to go back to live. Note: I did have 1 experience a year before live where I lost 15k in vegas because I didn't make the proper adjustments to the slower play. With that said I went in prepared. The game I play is 10-25 NL holdem and PLO. The play is fawkin horrendous! I won 2k then 11k in about 6 hours sessions, but just from what I've seen I feel I could pull 200k out of that game this year no prob playin 3 times a week.

I feel the game seems much easier then from what I saw in vegas. Mainly full of party store owners and [censored].. you can just look at these guys and know they ain't a poka playa. If a younger guy sits down that looks like an internet player I automatically give him some respect and try not to butt heads.

[jacksquat]

so i guess all of the on-line players should go and play live. if they are so much better than regular live players, they should be able to make even more money. why would they play in tougher games then necessary?

[kolotoure]

[ QUOTE ]
so i guess all of the on-line players should go and play live. if they are so much better than regular live players, they should be able to make even more money. why would they play in tougher games then necessary?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's really obvious. Think about it for a while

[KingGordy]

[ QUOTE ]
so i guess all of the on-line players should go and play live. if they are so much better than regular live players, they should be able to make even more money. why would they play in tougher games then necessary?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can get in an average of 500 hands/hour with relative ease online. With live play I'm looking at about 30 hands/hour. So for live play to be worth it my expectation per hand (winrate) would have to be about 15X greater live.

[HOWMANY]

[ QUOTE ]
so i guess all of the on-line players should go and play live. if they are so much better than regular live players, they should be able to make even more money. why would they play in tougher games then necessary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad we don't live in magical fairy world where they let me multitable the main game and must move of the 20/40 and 40/80 games at the casino.

[Hammerhead]

I don't know, it's probably got something to do with the fact that sitting at home for 2 hours a day multitabling for a year, they probably see more hands than the "average" live player sees in a lifetime.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know, it's probably got something to do with the fact that sitting at home for 2 hours a day multitabling for a year, they probably see more hands than the "average" live player sees in a lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing numerous hands doesn't equate to being good, however.