Not sure why I do better live than online

[EvilDruidNE]

would you guys say it is worth it to save and instead of buying into a 1-2 game for 200$ waiting and playing 2-4 buying in like 4-500$. I find in 1-2 you have a range of good players down to people that are on vacation and will gladly throw money on 2nd pair (aka donks). also though this makes it hard to play "good poker", like bluffing, squeeze plays, etc because people call so often. is my thinking correct that as you go into higher blinds these plays become more viable or is it simply sometimes just not applicable in all levels of play

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
play "good poker", like bluffing, squeeze plays, etc because people call so often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always caution posters when they make statements like this. Good poker is what gets the $$, not who can make the most outrageous bluff or most sophisticated squeeze play.

If getting the $$ means you play squeaky tight b/c you have a table full of maniacs, then that's good poker. If it means you loosen up b/c your table is full of rocks, then that's good poker. If it means that you have to be aware of multiple levels of poker and have superior hand-reading skills b/c you're sitting at a table full of experts, that's good poker.

I also believe that your comment is a variation of the "should I move up where they respect my raises?" argument. I'm in the camp that says if you have trouble beating the 1/2 game full of loose, fishy players, how can you expect to do well at the higher levels where the average player is more knowledgeable?

In general, the higher you go, the more your opponents pay attention, therefore advanced plays are more effective. However, the flip side is that your opponents at the upper levels know these plays too. These plays will be in their arsenals ... as well as the counter-strategies.

My advice is to sit in the best game. If you notice a 1/2 game playing rocky tight with a bunch of good players, but the 2/4 game has 3 or 4 known nits, sit the 2/4 game if you can afford it. In a casino where several of each are spread though, the 1/2 game is likely the easier game.

[Javanewt]

Very good post 7n7.

I'll add that if your bankroll is one buy-in, you are in trouble. If you have to save to be able to buy in with $500 -- don't play anywhere until you have at least the $500 and then play 1/2NL. Bankroll is just as important live as it is online.

[Cry Me A River]

Online players are much, much better than live players at the same stakes. There are a number of reasons why:

1 - Live, the lowest stakes are $1/$2 NL. Online, the lowest stakes are $.01/$.02 NL. So online the worst players are playing $.01/$.02 NL. Live they're playing $1/$2 NL. Online, $.01/$.02 NL is SIX levels below $1/$2 NL.

2 - Getting into a live game is far more casual than an online game. Live games often have inexperienced players stumble into the game on their way from the blackjack tables to the slots. Online you need to download and install the software, register an account and figure out a way to deposit. Online takes a far greater level of dedication JUST TO GET STARTED.

3 - When a player wants to make more money live, he moves up in stakes. Online, he multi-tables. In this way online players are able to put much more money in play while limiting their exposure in any one hand and avoid playing with better players. Online $.5/$1 NL players can make a nice living out of multi-tabling. There aren't very many live $1/$2 NL pros.

4 - No HUDs or Pokertracker live.

5 - Online players see many more hands per hour, particularly if they multi-table. More hands per hour equals more experience equals better play.

6 - Free alcohol in casinos.

[Matt Williams]

When you play online, you need to grind it out most times. But live, you know IMMEDIATELY who is drunk and has money to burn. You can sit for 2 hours folding every hand and stack a drunk guy not paying attention. It's also harder to take online player seriously because you don't have immediate access to the money like you do online.

[runout_mick]

[ QUOTE ]
also though this makes it hard to play "good poker", like bluffing, squeeze plays, etc because people call so often.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is going to come across as harsh, but I say it with the kindest of intentions:

I would strongly recommend that you stop actively playing poker until you've studied the basics of the game enough to know why I quoted this passage.

Trust me, you'll save yourself some expensive lessons.

[SinOrSwim]

I think live is easier as well. I'm a modestly winning player live and a modestly losing player on line. However, I played a lot of tournaments on-line and have lost a moderate amount. I started playing micro limit cash games and have won some of that back. Mostly 0.10/0.25.

I also wouldn't believe everybody who "says" they are a winning player. The majority of players are losing players. There are some very arrogant people on this site at times. Not everyone of them who says they win is telling the truth.

[aargh57]

[ QUOTE ]
There are some very arrogant people on this site at times. Not everyone of them who says they win is telling the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blasphemer!!! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]


Just kidding. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] I think you're spot on there.

[Matt Williams]

[ QUOTE ]
I think live is easier as well. I'm a modestly winning player live and a modestly losing player on line. However, I played a lot of tournaments on-line and have lost a moderate amount. I started playing micro limit cash games and have won some of that back. Mostly 0.10/0.25.

I also wouldn't believe everybody who "says" they are a winning player. The majority of players are losing players. There are some very arrogant people on this site at times. Not everyone of them who says they win is telling the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey take it from me. I suck. I'm a losing player. But I know why. It's because poker is a social thing for me. I play to relax. Now when I sit and take it seriously, I am pretty decent. If I took it as seriously as say Phil Ivey, I would be winning player. How much? Who knows. Obviously not as much as him. But I don't. Because serious poker is boring poker.

So I know I can win if I take it seriously and don't play out of my league. But it's boring to fold just because my odds don't justify it. Especially when I sit down w/ $100 and it means nothing to me.

Ironically, if I were to sit w/ 10K, I would play much better. But who the hell needs the stress that's added?

[DMC0627]

You all bring up valid and interesting points that make sense. In the short time I have been playing, this forum has helped out a lot. Great community here.