evolution of a poker player... - Page 13

Bokonon1972 · #**121** 06-12-2007, 09:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Not only was that not a silly statement. It's boringly true. He could've said something much stronger like said they could crush at much higher stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know the old saying about losing touch with reality because one spends too much time at his computer?

Bokonon1972 · #**122** 06-12-2007, 09:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Might be underestimating the spaz/boredom/tilt aspect. especially of some 6max LAGS used to 800 hands/hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but its not just that. They also ignore group psychology, physicality, and other basic, fairly logical points, such as the fact that live poker is played by people who had to make an effort to get to the casino, as opposed to sitting around clicking--the neophyte factor is (or was) MUCH higher online.

I swear: anyone that thinks they can sit down with actual people and win just because they play a fairly sound mathematical game in a fantasy cupcake environment really spends too much time in front of their computer.

Ghazban · #**123** 06-12-2007, 09:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Might be underestimating the spaz/boredom/tilt aspect. especially of some 6max LAGS used to 800 hands/hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but its not just that. They also ignore group psychology, physicality, and other basic, fairly logical points, such as the fact that live poker is played by people who had to make an effort to get to the casino, as opposed to sitting around clicking--the neophyte factor is (or was) MUCH higher online.

I swear: anyone that thinks they can sit down with actual people and win just because they play a fairly sound mathematical game in a fantasy cupcake environment really spends too much time in front of their computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

so..... what color is the sky on your planet?

daca · #**124** 06-12-2007, 11:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's like a columnist in a well-known poker mag, who shows all those equations in his column to determine his estimated (exact?) EV for every play based on his assignment of his opponent's range. Well, I've never heard of him taking ANYTHING down.......

[/ QUOTE ]

wait, are you talking about Jman? Is this sarcasm?

Triumph36 · #**125** 06-12-2007, 12:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Might be underestimating the spaz/boredom/tilt aspect. especially of some 6max LAGS used to 800 hands/hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but its not just that. They also ignore group psychology, physicality, and other basic, fairly logical points, such as the fact that live poker is played by people who had to make an effort to get to the casino, as opposed to sitting around clicking--the neophyte factor is (or was) MUCH higher online.

I swear: anyone that thinks they can sit down with actual people and win just because they play a fairly sound mathematical game in a fantasy cupcake environment really spends too much time in front of their computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have no idea what you're talking about.

Tx has a point, but shouldn't that re-raise range also mean that a player who picks his spots should crush these weak-passive players? There are certainly online players I know who lack the discipline to play live - were they forced to play live, they would probably quit the game altogther. If they could get over their boredom, they would crush these stakes though.

MilkMan · #**126** 06-12-2007, 01:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not only was that not a silly statement. It's boringly true. He could've said something much stronger like said they could crush at much higher stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know the old saying about losing touch with reality because one spends too much time at his computer?

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm sure that saying mentioning computers must be real ancient alright

iRock · #**127** 06-12-2007, 04:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the most important part of playing live is patience. Playing 20x less hands an hour and you probably have 50 times less action if you are playing full ring. So I would probably have the same amount of action and standard deviation in a week of online as in one year playing live poker.

Anyways I would say that internet players learn the game atleast 5x faster then live players, arguably 10x+ faster.

[/ QUOTE ]

I started playing live, then played online, then after party shut down I play mostly live again. Online taught me a lot, but truth be told, analyzing hands and reading posts on 2p2 and using twodimes is what made me a much better player in a short amount of time.

That said, I'm of the opinion that a lot of online players have a very hard time adapting to live play. I've just spent about 20 hours in the past three days playing live 5-10 NL at Winstar, and it's nothing like the games online. If someone opens UTG for $30, and someone re-raises that guy, the average players range for re-raising UTG is literally AA,KK,QQ. Live players (imo) play on shorter bankrolls and are more risk adverse, thus the games are more passive, and playing a LAG strategy isn't optimal. That's why I say that a lot of online players can't adapt, because they've played hundreds of thousands of hands in these wide range aggressive games, and they've never dealt with the slow, passive live games that populate the majority of the middle limit no limit games that exist. Granted, I've never played in california, I hear the games there are the most aggressive around, but my observation stands for the middle limit no limit games in Texas and Las Vegas. They're a stark contrast from the same stakes online.

I think it's obvious that a succesful online player can adapt eventually and beat a live game, but many will struggle with the change because they're not used to playing in passive games where they see far fewer hands per hour.

-Tex

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post... As a primarily live player I completely agree with all this...

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone is playing passive and weak, wouldn't you want to play a LAG style? I think some players will take it too far and not letting up when meeting the right amount of resistance that the tight player is felting his hand, but playing a lot of hands against weak tight players is a good way to scoop up a lot of small pots.

DJ Sensei · #**128** 06-12-2007, 05:06 PM

Like I said earlier, the best player is simply the one who adjusts the best to the game he's in, and thus has a wide range of developed 'gears' that he can adapt to any situation. In an online game, those situations can be most readily assessed by means of statistics and quantity. In a live game, the significantly shorter number of hands per unit time makes finding different means of analysis necessary; namely, reading players not just during the hand but in between hands as well. Yes, you must still take note of their hand ranges, and the best way for an online player to beat a live game is to do just that, because thats what they're used to, but live players (unlike online) will more likely make drastic changes to their range in response to something other than the cards. I.E. you giving off reverse tells, or them picking up on tells from another player. If online players have failings playing live, it is generally a matter of either lack of patience (which leads to over-aggression, or calling too light, or general poor play), misplaced reads based on applying their standard online reads to their new live opponents (using betting patterns, when those patterns might not even apply to the ranges that the live player actually has), or an assumption that the style they normally play will be the best one in this game as well (when in reality, an online players style will not often be the most optimal in a live game). Or, of course, some combination of the three.

Bokonon1972 · #**129** 06-12-2007, 05:25 PM

What?

Bokonon1972 · #**130** 06-12-2007, 05:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is true, but its not just that. They also ignore group psychology, physicality, and other basic, fairly logical points, such as the fact that live poker is played by people who had to make an effort to get to the casino, as opposed to sitting around clicking--the neophyte factor is (or was) MUCH higher online.

I swear: anyone that thinks they can sit down with actual people and win just because they play a fairly sound mathematical game in a fantasy cupcake environment really spends too much time in front of their computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

you have no idea what you're talking about.

Tx has a point, but shouldn't that re-raise range also mean that a player who picks his spots should crush these weak-passive players? There are certainly online players I know who lack the discipline to play live - were they forced to play live, they would probably quit the game altogther. If they could get over their boredom, they would crush these stakes though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I didn't quite understand how someone (or many someones) could say "You don't know what you're talking about" when it comes to live vs. online play, having rarely or never played in a serious live game.

But the answer is obvious: many of the people glorifying online players are too young to be allowed into a casino. Young and naive (didn't say 'dumb'), no experience, think they can do anything.

You mention Tx's post, and acknowledge he has a point, but then blow past it. Read DJ Sensei's posts in this thread. I know he wins both online and live. He gets it.