On B&M and the strategy forums

[bernie]

Interesting post. I agree with alot of it. Especially the avoiding the strat forums at your own peril.

[ QUOTE ]
with online poker getting choked off by legislation, many former online players will decide to give it a go as full-time live pro's. at first they may play over-aggressively, but they'll quickly adjust. they'll have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of hands of experience under their belts, and they won't be averse to pushing small edges. if you (the b&m player) don't try to improve and keep up, these internet kids WILL eat you up.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
but online players can easily make a few adjustments to a live game and be right at home;

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing that will affect online players as they switch is the pace. I wouldn't underestimate that as a factor, either. It's much easier to go through a 20-40k hand bad swing online than it is live. That will be a big test. Online is like a faster paced video game. Live is, imo, much more of a grind.

Boredom will also be a factor. Many onliners haven't really learned what to do during hands they're not in on since they're usually in on a hand somewhere else as they multitable. They also will have to learn what life's like in a face to face environment. There's no mute button live and you better have a thick skin.

Obviously, the better onliners likely won't have a problem. The average ones? We'll see.

b

[ICallHimGamblor]

[ QUOTE ]

i started out as an online player, then began making monthly/bi-monthly wknd-trips to a/c to play live, and occasional excursions out to vegas. but i primarily played on the internet. i would estimate that i've logged close to 500k hands online. then i moved out to vegas last fall and in the past 6 months i've played live almost exclusively. so i think i have a good deal of experience in both live and internet poker. i'm also in my early-30s, so i'm not a representative of the 19-y/o crowd.

i hate to break it to you b&m players: internet players are better than you. every winning online player i know crushes live games. many winning live players i know can't beat tough/biggish online games.

yes, live and online poker are somewhat "different" games, but online players can easily make a few adjustments to a live game and be right at home; the same can't be said of a live player when his game is suddenly populated by a bunch of online players. to the b&m player i say this: ignore the strat forums at your own peril.

with online poker getting choked off by legislation, many former online players will decide to give it a go as full-time live pro's. at first they may play over-aggressively, but they'll quickly adjust. they'll have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of hands of experience under their belts, and they won't be averse to pushing small edges. if you (the b&m player) don't try to improve and keep up, these internet kids WILL eat you up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two quick points:
(1) I am not going to reread the entire thread, but I don't remember anyone claiming that B&M players were better than online players. As far as I can tell, you are making that argument into thin air. In fact, I think the point that online players are way worse is made at least once a week here.
(2) I don't think most posters here IGNORE the strategy forums. We just rarely POST there. Big difference.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i started out as an online player, then began making monthly/bi-monthly wknd-trips to a/c to play live, and occasional excursions out to vegas. but i primarily played on the internet. i would estimate that i've logged close to 500k hands online. then i moved out to vegas last fall and in the past 6 months i've played live almost exclusively. so i think i have a good deal of experience in both live and internet poker. i'm also in my early-30s, so i'm not a representative of the 19-y/o crowd.

i hate to break it to you b&m players: internet players are better than you. every winning online player i know crushes live games. many winning live players i know can't beat tough/biggish online games.

yes, live and online poker are somewhat "different" games, but online players can easily make a few adjustments to a live game and be right at home; the same can't be said of a live player when his game is suddenly populated by a bunch of online players. to the b&m player i say this: ignore the strat forums at your own peril.

with online poker getting choked off by legislation, many former online players will decide to give it a go as full-time live pro's. at first they may play over-aggressively, but they'll quickly adjust. they'll have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of hands of experience under their belts, and they won't be averse to pushing small edges. if you (the b&m player) don't try to improve and keep up, these internet kids WILL eat you up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two quick points:
(1) I am not going to reread the entire thread, but I don't remember anyone claiming that B&M players were better than online players. As far as I can tell, you are making that argument into thin air. In fact, I think the point that online players are way worse is made at least once a week here.
(2) I don't think most posters here IGNORE the strategy forums. We just rarely POST there. Big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Yes, it is a tired argument.

2) Iirc, many in this thread did mention that they didn't even go into the strat forums. I think he was referring to them.

b

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Iirc, many in this thread did mention that they didn't even go into the strat forums. I think he was referring to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said it. I am repenting of my sinning ways and have begun to lurk, now posting, we'll have to wait and see on that one.

PS. as if I could ever refrain from adding my two cents worth.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Iirc, many in this thread did mention that they didn't even go into the strat forums. I think he was referring to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said it. I am repenting of my sinning ways and have begun to lurk, now posting, we'll have to wait and see on that one.

PS. as if I could ever refrain from adding my two cents worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] U for lurking! Its the first step. The second step is stripping any remaining ego, because your going to be told that your wrong more often than you want - and thats ok. 4th step is to remember not to argue with those who disagree - even if they are wrong you can learn from their errors.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the strategy forums for a long time so they may be very differeent now, but it didn't take very many YSSCKY, you suck at poker, and etc. with no explanaton why I was wrong to sour me on the strategy forums.

Maybe I am wrong but if you are going to tell me I should seriously consider killing myself, you should at least explain why.

[/ QUOTE ]

That has changed, you wont find that too often in the strat forums now that they are moderated well. I wish you would come back and give it a try, at least lurk and learn!

[/ QUOTE ]

It still seems pretty common to me. On a recent occasion one of my B&M posts was moved to a strategy forum (even though I wasn't seeking strategic advice about the play of the hand; I later posted the topic again and think it got a lot of good feedback).

If you read that post, you'll find relatively few good pieces of advice in proportion to the sarcastic/degrading feedback. It was actually a moderator that gave the most insults -- calling my play "dumb", with "logic errors", and "flawed thinking". (Remember, I wasn't asking for strategic feedback of my -EV play.)

Said moderator later said it was a bad play & I should never bluff since I don't know the appropriate time to (with the added advice of "you work out the rest"). He then went on to tell me I should have posted this in the BBV forum, but people would laugh at me for how bad I played.

It doesn't stop there...

I then was told I was being lame for "blaming others for [my] own lack of understanding about the game", and that I should "be a man".

And more...

I was later told: "your clueless about how to play and your embarrassed that its been discovered", and "if you don't want help anymore from my forum then I can arrange for you to be exiled from the B&M forum".

So, forgive me if I don't think the hostility has ended in the strategy forums. Unfortunately, it seems like the hostility ending will take a lot longer if better examples aren't set by those in charge.

[*TT*]

I decided to move this thread here because KipBond is bitter after I moved a strat thread riddled with errors to Full Ring NL. In the thread he was concerned that he was exhibiting a tell because some guy called his bluff into a multi-way pot with Q high, the opponent probably thought he had a straight and was happy to learn he won with high card. The guys in FRNL told him the tell wasnt the problem, his problem was the way he thought about poker, no limit, and the hand itself. He of course freaked out both in the thread, and via PM to me - he was shocked that he would be told that he made an error.

I responded to him by saying "Kip - your clueless about how to play the hand and your embarrassed that its been discovered. get over it, we were all there once. Your betting patterns are obvious from the hand you posted, thats the tell you are looking for, not something physical. You need help, and we are all trying to help you - but if you don't want help anymore from the forum I moderate then I can arrange for you to be exiled from the B&M forum - I don't want to see that happen, but its your decision to make. " - note - he sent the PM to me after he started another tells thread, thats the partial reference in my reply. There were other PM's before this, this is the only one I kept.

a few days later he brought back this old thread, a headache I really don't need to be dealing with at the moment. If his POV was remotely valid I would have left it, but its so out of wack with 2+2's ideals that I thought it would be better if I buried it here (anyone who disagrees is free to voice their opinion, nothing is set in stone - I have an open mind).

PS to RR - this is the guy we were talking about a week or so ago