How Kenny Tran Rates Internet Players

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am just a messenger here and don't even really know, for the most part, which players are involved.

Anyway about a month ago I happened to be in a (rare) 50-100 no limit holdem game with Kenny Tran, who I barely know, except that I hear he is one of the best high stakes cash game players. And I asked him how many of the top 20 high stakes NLH players nowadays, were mainly products of the internet. His answer was "zero, they can't lay down a hand."

Upon asking for elaboration, he told me that he was talking mainly about very high stakes, nine handed, live games. If the nine handed game happened to be on the internet his answer remained zero but it was closer. If it was a six handed internet high stakes game he now agreed that some of the top twenty would be those who are considered internet players. He also specified that he did not consider Patrick Antonius to be an internet player.

Again I barely know many of the players he was thinking of. And he didn't name them. If there are specific players who you are curious as to where he ranks them, you can ask me and I'll ask him. He gave me permission to start this thread which I am doing soley because it might generate discussion. I don't know enough to participate in that discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

tran is wrong about this. many of the "young guns" i play against are as good as the wcp's that came before them and before the internet AT HOLDEM. None (and i mean none) of the top 100 POKER PLAYERS in the world are products of the internet. every now and then one of the internet kids goes on such a big heater he wanders over to the big mixed game and the skill level is laughable...which leads me to believe that most dont understand poker in general. i remember huck seed, minutes after learning the basic rules of a game he was already a dangerous player, i havent met an internet guy like that yet. theyre brought up wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont get this. if internet players are so bad, how come limon does not make millions playing online?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol...how do you know i dont? and who wants to settle for a million anyway?

during 2004 i played more hands at party than anyone west of the miss. that was confirmed by vikrant. i learned what i needed to learn (and made a ton of green) after that i got people to do my work for me.

oh, and learn to read...i dint say online players are bad i said theyre bad a mixed games. truth be told the online holdem games are so tough right now i had to shut down that business.

[markksman]

[ QUOTE ]

But that's the best way to make money in those endeavors. It's not like these guys are getting to choose from sixty different tournaments in a given week. If you want to make a lot of money at tennis, you will end up playing the best players.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something I was trying to get at earlier, when I mentioned money being the ultimate scorecard. In individual sports, you have to play the top competition if you want to win the most money. It is the way it is, because the top players want a chance at the big money, so they all compete in the top events.

Poker seems a bit different as a lot of people are content to play in their own little pond and not test themselves against others. So does money provide an accurate measure? I suspect some people out there make huge money playing people who are way below them and taking all their money. You can't be a succesful tennis player doing that.

As it stands in poker right now, the biggest events don't always, allegedly, attract the top players. The question is why? Why don't the top poker players want to seek out those top events? I suspect it is value. They can make nearly as much money with much less risk playing players who are worse then them.

If Federer could make 30 million a year playing high school kids, he might choose to do that, as the risk reward is way out of whack. Plus individual sports cost time, training and money to get to the events, but you are not actually risking any money in the competition itself.

I guess part of me wishes poker were more like tennis and golf, where the top players were forced to play against each other in order to succeed, but that is not how poker works.

[Eagles]

Limon,
They are bad had mixed games because for the most part they never play them. This does not mean they lack the ability to be good at those games.

[VitoT]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever played with really topnotch online guys? I'd wager you haven't, so I don't see how you're qualified to say how they're "so bad" at anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can u stop thinking u know something about me or who i played againts ? that's right, i have 70 post and registered 4 months ago. so ? do u think 2+2 is the only way to learn online poker, or poker in general ? we are not talking about individuals, and that's why i'm not saying that u have 5000+ posts here, and got registered more then 5+ years ago, so probably playing like 6+ years, but still playing 1/2, 2/4 for a 10-15+ buy-ins per month (that's the highest and, most posters here playing or earning). it's not about u or me, we are discussing in general about the differnts between online poker players and live poker players, cash games only.


[ QUOTE ]
But that's the best way to make money in those endeavors. It's not like these guys are getting to choose from sixty different tournaments in a given week. If you want to make a lot of money at tennis, you will end up playing the best players.


[/ QUOTE ]

and it seems u just don't want to get it, so i'll try to make it easier for u.
i'm not talking about finding ways to "make money", for 1 second forget about the money ! i'm talking about doing something and become best at it.
do you think that Bill Gates thought about money when he founded microsoft ? do u think he motivated himself by saying : "I have to make it done as soon as possible, for me to make so much moneeeeyyyy ! i just have to make money !! i have to make so much money so i can wipe my ass with it !!!", probably not.
do u think that when Roger Federer started to play tennis he thought about money as a 10 years boy ? he just worked hard, and deticated himself to the goal, but it wasn't money, the money just came along with the seccess and not the other way. the thing is first of all to be good at something, to do something, and the money will come to u.

ohh, and watch "scarface", you will see what will happen to if you keep thinking that way.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever played with really topnotch online guys? I'd wager you haven't, so I don't see how you're qualified to say how they're "so bad" at anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can u stop thinking u know something about me or who i played againts ? that's right, i have 70 post and registered 4 months ago. so ? do u think 2+2 is the only way to learn online poker, or poker in general ? we are not talking about individuals, and that's why i'm not saying that u have 5000+ posts here, and got registered more then 5+ years ago, so probably playing like 6+ years, but still playing 1/2, 2/4 for a 10-15+ buy-ins per month (that's the highest and, most posters here playing or earning). it's not about u or me, we are discussing in general about the differnts between online poker players and live poker players, cash games only.


[ QUOTE ]
But that's the best way to make money in those endeavors. It's not like these guys are getting to choose from sixty different tournaments in a given week. If you want to make a lot of money at tennis, you will end up playing the best players.


[/ QUOTE ]

and it seems u just don't want to get it, so i'll try to make it easier for u.
i'm not talking about finding ways to "make money", for 1 second forget about the money ! i'm talking about doing something and become best at it.
do you think that Bill Gates thought about money when he founded microsoft ? do u think he motivated himself by saying : "I have to make it done as soon as possible, for me to make so much moneeeeyyyy ! i just have to make money !! i have to make so much money so i can wipe my ass with it !!!", probably not.
do u think that when Roger Federer started to play tennis he thought about money as a 10 years boy ? he just worked hard, and deticated himself to the goal, but it wasn't money, the money just came along with the seccess and not the other way. the thing is first of all to be good at something, to do something, and the money will come to u.

ohh, and watch "scarface", you will see what will happen to if you keep thinking that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing the money aspects between poker and other professions is ridiculous. Of course guys like Federer didn't get involved in Tennis to make money. It takes a ton of natural skill and a ton of dedication to make any kind of real money from Tennis. You probably aren't going to make much money for several years if you make any at all. The difference is that poker is a game that is always played for money and you can pretty quickly with some hard work make good money. As for Bill Gates, I'm sure the main reason behind starting Microsoft was money. Regardless, poker is a completely different beast. Greed in poker is almost like a positive attribute, where as it would be looked at as a negative in almost anything else.

[jsnipes28]

VitoT-

Just to satisfy my own curiosity, is english your first, or even second language? You make some references to American culture which make me think that as scary as it is, english may be your first language.

For your own benefit (as well as ours) please learn some basic grammar, spelling and punctuation if you continue to post here so at least your retarded posts will be more clearly retarded.

[raptor517]

VitoT, ever consider the fact that MAYBE the reason they are around so long live is because they play 1/10th the number of hands most of the online guys play? maybe even less? so if u look at it in terms of just yearly staying power, guys like aba or whoever would have been around for probably a full life cycle of a live poker player in just 2-3 years online if you break it down by hands played. its really naive to argue the way you are based on purely length of time being 'around'.

part of the reason the 'live' players can have so much 'pride' and play anyone heads up or whatever and play for the challenge blah blah blah is because they dont see as many hands, and they wont go broke anywhere NEAR as fast playing live in -ev games as if they had the same mentality in the online world.

[Python49]

The argument here isn't really about online players in mixed games since online players simply don't play mixed games much since theres so many more hold'em running. If mixed games had the popularity hold'em does and thats where the money was, best believe that would get taken over too. Saying live players are better overall players in poker than online players is kind of like saying white people are much better at golf and hockey than black people. Lord i'm hoping this doesn't steer the conversation in that direction but the only point i'm making is that just they are better simply due to them not playing it much. It's kind of like how live pros were so much better than competitors because they played it alot more than average competition.. so that when the internet opened up 24/7 games electronically online... the standard for poker skill was raised because players were able to get in much more experience. Doesn't make sense to me that live players get so insulted when someone says internet players play better considering internet players get to see SO many more hands/situations. If someone says they are better than me at some video game they've played for 10 years longer than I have that's not an insult, it just comes down to experience.

[ QUOTE ]
online players are able to adjust to the live play
skill set fairly easily, while the converse doesn't seem
to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the thread doesn't end here.

[isapistola]

[ QUOTE ]
So I would say that live players are likely to be better at playing in a live environment against internet bred players, and internet players are likely to be better at playing online against live players.

[/ QUOTE ]
but if these groups played against each other in both environments the online players would have more edge.

[ QUOTE ]
PA rose to the top through playing limit 6max and HU on ladbrokes but whatever..

[/ QUOTE ]
he originally started playing poker as a kid with his friends and then moved on to play at grand casino helsinki, so his first experiences with poker have been live. then he made a small deposit online and quickly grinded it up to lower five figures (source finnish newspaper: helsingin sanomat).

[ QUOTE ]
You can't compare it to tennis, or golf, cause there are the best competing the best and not avoiding them

[/ QUOTE ]
in sports like these theres only an incredibly small amount of players who make any money at all (like under 1%). so in order to make money you have to take part in the biggest tourneys where all the other pros are also playing.

in poker you can be the second worst player in the world and still make money if you play against the absolute worst player. therefore the percentual amount of money making players in poker is way higher than in other sports.

if the tennis/golf pros had a chance to play for money with guy laliberte or andy beal do you think theyd pass because they only like to play the top competition?

[ QUOTE ]
If you talk to Roger Federer, or some other athlet about what they are doing, they will talk about anything but the "money they are making"

[/ QUOTE ]
they will talk about winning which is essentially the same thing. in poker you win money cause thats what we play with, in tennis you win games/tournaments which means you win money.

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
online players are able to adjust to the live play
skill set fairly easily, while the converse doesn't seem
to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the thread doesn't end here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, this is by far the strongest argument I have read either way.