Is it boring playing LIVE - too much time wasting?

[Riorin]

I have never played live, only online and sometimes even PS's 120 seconds seems too long?

Every other hand on WSOP someone goes into the tank for 5, 10 minutes and so on...

10 minutes seems enough to make a written essay with reasoning on every possible combination of 2 hole cards.

So, can someone with experience in both live and online play elaborate is 10 minutes really neccesary?

[Dranoel]

Live play is great to play.

It's not as bad as you make it sound. You should try it one day. You can play the WSOP Circuit Events for as little as $300 to experience the fun.

[pig4bill]

You could if there was such a thing as the Circuit any more.

[rosso87]

trust me once you go down to your local casino or whatever for the first time, and you sit down and it looks like 4-5 or even more of the players are sitting there TRYING to tell you what they have you will wonder why you ever doubted live play.

if your even half competent live poker is the way to go.

[Flip-Flop]

Live is the real poker.
I strongly believe that without some B&M experience you can play poker but you can never call yourself a poker player. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[CrazyLond]

[ QUOTE ]

Every other hand on WSOP someone goes into the tank for 5, 10 minutes and so on...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never played in a WSOP event, but I'd imagine as you go deeper, people starting going into the tank for longer due to the huge implications of their decisions.

In regular live cash games and smaller tournaments, I generally find the play progresses at a good rate, especially playing limit. Every now and again someone will take their time with a tough decision or there will be a drunk who takes 5 mins every hand, but the +EV compared to the same stakes online makes it well worth the wait.

[RarocASP]

Look for a casino with automatic shufflers. They speed the game up slightly. Wait to hear local nits complain about the shufflers everytime a flop even vaguely resembles the previous flop (might only apply in AC).

[FireStorm]

He's right, live can become extremely boring and thus the tendency exists to play more hands out of sheer lack of action. Also leads to the inane chatter about flop superstitions, etc. However, in terms of physicaL tells, and improved winrate due to loose play, there are some advantages.

As for televised events where people constantly tank for huge periods of time, it's likely part Hollywooding for the cameras, and part concern about the payout structure. Marginal players also givem themself harder decisions than they really have, trying to convince themselves that a call is the correct course of action.

[jsmith5]

[ QUOTE ]
As for televised events where people constantly tank for huge periods of time, it's likely part Hollywooding for the cameras, and part concern about the payout structure. Marginal players also givem themself harder decisions than they really have, trying to convince themselves that a call is the correct course of action.

[/ QUOTE ]

as the levels and payouts increase, every decision carries with it increased significance. it has very little to do with cameras. i say this because there's little difference at a WPT event with no cameras around in late-stage play than at the wsop with a dozen. it probably takes a bit longer here because there are more amateurs remaining, but the difference is slight.

some decisions are much easier than others so of course there's some posturing that goes on.

[Isura]

live poker is gay. play blackjack instead (more and faster action)