Brian & Barry's prop bet

[pepeman]

[ QUOTE ]
I read it as

Barry pays brian 10% of any prize that any ZeeJustin wins
Barry pays brian 10% of any prize that Sorel wins

Brian pays barry 20% of any prize that Barry wins

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[barryg1]

1. The bet started slightly differently than Brian said. He was remarking how online players are better than live players. I said that, actually, he was poised to be the first to beat the high stakes winners in their environment. It helped that we were playing his two best games. None have yet to make a successful splash in the mixed games. The reason: to get to the top you need to play against top competition, not just log a lot of hours.

2. I mentioned that the two biggest online winners on Full Tilt were first successful live players before they took on all comers at online poker. (Patrik Antonius and Phil Ivey are the two biggest winners. The limit games aren’t tracked well, but I have insider information.)

3. He said that online players were taking the tournaments by storm. I said there are a lot of them, but I haven’t noticed one that rates to do as well as I have in WPT events, where the fields are tougher than WSOP events. (I haven’t checked, but I would think I have made the second day and cashed in more WPT events than anyone else since I started going to the majority of them in Season Two.)

4. People talk about how many hands the online players play. It reminds me of spending hours practicing a bad golf swing. In poker, the hours you spend playing are worth something, but the hours you spend analyzing hands are more important. I have spent more time thinking about poker than the younger players. If you pick specific players who you think will do well this next year, you will see some of them airball the major tournaments. I will be in tournaments late, and I will make a WPT final table in the next year.

5. Brian and I both came to the same conclusion: the argument about live vs. online is just a statement about the age of a player. It is already becoming the case that virtually all serious new players are getting the majority of their training online. I actually agree that online players are on average better than live players, because it is closer to saying that serious players are better than casual players.

6. The word gets out on how to counter the strategy of successful players. Sophomore slump is real in tournament poker. Some players get away with murder until the field sees what they are doing. To be consistent for a number of years, you have to be good and you have to adapt.

7. I’m sure some of the young players will pass me up, since they are getting better and I am declining as I get older. Any other online wizards can meet me at WPT events for some sporting action. (Brian declined to bet on himself, by the way.)


Barry

[EWS87]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually agree that online players are on average better than live players, because it is closer to saying that serious players are better than casual players.

[/ QUOTE ]

this to me is the most important thing in the online/live debate. While the top 1-2% of live players may be better then the top 1-2% of online players (this will still be argued by some), if you go into a casino and randomly pick someone playing 5-10 and go on full tilt and randomly pick someone playing 5-10, my money will be on the online player to destroy him. Granted theres some variance in doing this but the more times we picked, the more I would win

the only thing that bothers me in the debate is when live players refuse to acknowledge this

[silver book]

Wow thanks for the post.

Didn't PA start online?

[Whitewash]

Patrik first played live, but built his BR and his poker game through internet poker.


Barry, you say that NLHE and PLO are Brian's two best games. It could easily be argued these are the two most skillful forms of poker, if the term "skillful" is classified as:
-Edges vs opponents are most easily exploited
-It takes the least amount of hands played to actually take much from results
-Edges come from reading and adapting to your opponents, not just having a better understanding of intricacies of a game that few others regularly play

[emerton]

[ QUOTE ]


2. I mentioned that the two biggest online winners on Full Tilt were first successful live players before they took on all comers at online poker. (Patrik Antonius and Phil Ivey are the two biggest winners. The limit games aren’t tracked well, but I have insider information.)

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

In the case of Patrik Antonius you are wrong. He was one of the top limit players online for years, and played the highest stakes available. So Antonius was a winning online player that became a winning live player not the other way around.

[barryg1]

[ QUOTE ]
[In the case of Patrik Antonius you are wrong. He was one of the top limit players online for years, and played the highest stakes available. So Antonius was a winning online player that became a winning live player not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, you don't know Patrik. He was a successful live player in Finland for three years before he touched the Internet. Like a lot of talented Scandanavian players, he found it was more comfortable and lucrative to stay home and beat up on the rest of the world, than to go out in the cold and dark of winter and fight among themselves.

Barry

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The bet started slightly differently than Brian said. He was remarking how online players are better than live players. I said that, actually, he was poised to be the first to beat the high stakes winners in their environment. It helped that we were playing his two best games. None have yet to make a successful splash in the mixed games. The reason: to get to the top you need to play against top competition, not just log a lot of hours.

2. I mentioned that the two biggest online winners on Full Tilt were first successful live players before they took on all comers at online poker. (Patrik Antonius and Phil Ivey are the two biggest winners. The limit games aren’t tracked well, but I have insider information.)

3. He said that online players were taking the tournaments by storm. I said there are a lot of them, but I haven’t noticed one that rates to do as well as I have in WPT events, where the fields are tougher than WSOP events. (I haven’t checked, but I would think I have made the second day and cashed in more WPT events than anyone else since I started going to the majority of them in Season Two.)

4. People talk about how many hands the online players play. It reminds me of spending hours practicing a bad golf swing. In poker, the hours you spend playing are worth something, but the hours you spend analyzing hands are more important. I have spent more time thinking about poker than the younger players. If you pick specific players who you think will do well this next year, you will see some of them airball the major tournaments. I will be in tournaments late, and I will make a WPT final table in the next year.

5. Brian and I both came to the same conclusion: the argument about live vs. online is just a statement about the age of a player. It is already becoming the case that virtually all serious new players are getting the majority of their training online. I actually agree that online players are on average better than live players, because it is closer to saying that serious players are better than casual players.

6. The word gets out on how to counter the strategy of successful players. Sophomore slump is real in tournament poker. Some players get away with murder until the field sees what they are doing. To be consistent for a number of years, you have to be good and you have to adapt.

7. I’m sure some of the young players will pass me up, since they are getting better and I am declining as I get older. Any other online wizards can meet me at WPT events for some sporting action. (Brian declined to bet on himself, by the way.)


Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all this and still think your side of the bet is marginal at best.

You argue that the primary reason for the online players' dominance is that that they can get away with murder in the short-term, and then you let Brian pick two extremely promising internet players who are actively capitalizing on the short-term (and who can probably adjust like good players do, anyway).

[TheUsher]

If anyone has any other fun bets, keep me in mind as I might be interested.. probably going to be playing most of the 5k+ buyin live mtts for the next 6 months at least. Also going to be travelling w/a few people who might also be interested in these bets (durrrr/raptor, etc).

- Alan Sass

also, i hate pissing matches and i'm in no way saying that i'm better than x but this would be a fun bet to have to motivate me even more to play all the events coming up to finish out the year.

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
None have yet to make a successful splash in the mixed games. The reason: to get to the top you need to play against top competition, not just log a lot of hours.




[/ QUOTE ]

but mixed games don't run often online, and when they do it is the live players playing. What does run is a lot of no limit holdem cash games and tournaments. The top competition in those games IS online, and that's part of the reason why online players are better in those forms of the game, which is what the discussion is about if i understand correctly. I assume you disagree with me on the fact that the best players in these forms are online?