Why do I suck at online Hold Em?

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are online players so much better? Are you being sarcastic or are there reasons? I'm seriously interested. Please expound.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a tricky one buy here is my shot at it.

Online players generally have a lot more experience as far as number of hands played. And as an added bonus, they have gained this experience against other online players which is a slightly different game than a live game. I am going to say it is a little faster and looser since clicking a button to call or raise is easier than pulling chips out of a stack and having 10 other people looking at you while you're doing it.

As well, lots of players in casinos are simply non poker types who get tired of black jack or roulette and try to hit the jackpot at the poker tables. As well, there are players who show up at the casino who have played home poker and know the hand rankings and how to bluff, etc. But they think holdem is just another form of a home poker game play accordingly. Even better, they may have seen a few TV shows of holdem and combine that with their current knowledge and head to the casino to make some easy money.

[AJackson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are online players so much better? Are you being sarcastic or are there reasons? I'm seriously interested. Please expound.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a tricky one buy here is my shot at it.

Online players generally have a lot more experience as far as number of hands played. And as an added bonus, they have gained this experience against other online players which is a slightly different game than a live game. I am going to say it is a little faster and looser since clicking a button to call or raise is easier than pulling chips out of a stack and having 10 other people looking at you while you're doing it.

As well, lots of players in casinos are simply non poker types who get tired of black jack or roulette and try to hit the jackpot at the poker tables. As well, there are players who show up at the casino who have played home poker and know the hand rankings and how to bluff, etc. But they think holdem is just another form of a home poker game play accordingly. Even better, they may have seen a few TV shows of holdem and combine that with their current knowledge and head to the casino to make some easy money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. You also have to factor in that the good players are playing 6-12 tables-depending upon the game-so a minority of skilled players has a wide impact.

[Webster]

I don't think online is looser - I think it is tighter actually but it depends on the limits and so forth.

Also - online players are there to play poker - not enjoy a beer with friends. They are alone (normally) and they are their to make money, not for entertainment.

The 50,000 hand comment is actually conservative. I have gone 12,000 hands at +6 Big Bets per 100 hands and I have gone 6000 at -6 big bets per 100 hands. It takes 50,000 hands to start to level the streaks out.

I really don't think that most live pleyers EVER get the the long run and that means that live games actually ARE all about the cards and not the player.

How many times have you gone to a casino and saw a complete idiot win pot after pot. That can happen for a long long time. Long run he will bust out, 100% guarenteed. Long run is for skill, short run is all luck.

Just a guess but I bet winning is 98% luck and 2% skill. But that 2% is VERY important for the long run and very very few people have it.

I have been playing online since 1999 almost every day and I know I'm good enough to continue to play without ever reloading the bank, yet, I go through streaks where I swear I have lost the touch. Nothing works and I guess wrong or make the wrong play over and over.

If I went through a streak like that when I started I would be playing CIV III right now and not poker.

Short run, it is all luck, long run, it's all skill.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
that is amazing that you need to play 50,000 hands to see if you are donkey or not.

Poker is hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you should be able to know alot sooner than this. Especially if you've studied and shown that you understand the game and why you do certain things in some situations while doing something different in another.

b

[Webster]

bernie - while I agree in theory you really don't KNOW. I knew that after 10,000 hands in .5/1 and winning 7BB/100 that I had a clue.

I moved up to 1/2 and saw that while the game was a tad tighter it was still the same game, yet I was now losing.

I knew that the reason I was losing was not ME but bad cards so I moved up to 2/4 after 5000 hands. I knew I could beat the game.

HOWEVER - "knowing" you can win is different then actually proving to yourself that what you are thinking is correct.

Knowing the correct way to play poker is not the same as being able to handle your bankroll and not go on a mammoth tilt after not being dealt a hand to play for 500 hands.

A person can win at poker but that does not mean is a winning poker player in the long run as bankroll management comes into play.

did that make ANY sense?

[Scarmiglio]

The best way to know if you're good or bad in a short period of time is to post a bunch of hands in the appropriate forum and let others take a look at how you're playing. If you're playing well the money will follow, it's just a matter of time.

Also, the whole "in the short term it's 100% luck" stuff is BS. While the occasional fish has a good day playing every hand they're dealt, the majority of them hemorrhage money like crazy every day. Skills like saving a bet when you know you're beat, or earning an extra bet when you value bet on the river are critical to maximizing your profit, and these are skills you use every day.

[KurtSF]

We frequently focus on accuracy of figures around here, but in this case I think a little more accuracy of language is needed.

Sure, it is possible to "know" you are a winner with far fewer hands than 100k* or whatever. The problem arises in that many people who are less studied, less well-read, less experienced, and/or less immersed in the culture will take all sorts of random things, usually very promising short-term results, to be an indicator that they are a winning player.

When folks in this thread have said "you can't know you're a winning player until you've played 1,000,000,000* hands," what they meant is "your results are not evidence that you are a wining player until you have a gazzillion* hands."



* Hand counts are only an estimate. Your results may vary.

[Webster]

[ QUOTE ]
"in the short term it's 100% luck" stuff is BS.

[/ QUOTE ] those extra bets you are talking about . . in LIMIT is MAYBE worth 0.50BB/100. IF that!

you show me a random 100 hands. The difference between a -6BB/100 player which is about as bad as a person can be and a solid player and I bet it'll be 50/50 on who wins the most money.

In fact - that sounds like a good simulation - I'll get back to you! I have no problem proving myself wrong.

I wonder how I should do this. A table of average players with one fish and one shark?

[MugenDC5]

If you want to get better, keep a journal, every time you lose a hand, you remember what the other guy's showdown hand was and how he played the hand preflop and postflop and then make note of how you could have played YOUR hand to turn the outcome into a desirable one. You can do all this by yourself without posting anything on the forum. And the next time you start your poker session, quickly look through those things in point form to remind yourself NOT to do them.

Then you will improve.

[BB?]

Because you think it's a penis.