Just Got Patrik Antonius Answer To The Question I Asked Kenny Tran

[Hotel Detect]

I have been a proponent of the online player side of the argument for a while now but this just makes me do a 180. I mean who could be better suited to answer this question than PA?

I am not saying im convinced overall but this makes the endless arguement slightly more interesting.

[STA654]

David,

Did you ask him about the top 20 in a deep live shorthanded NLHE game?

[JSmith2007]

Alright, I'll chime in with my opinion (albeit worthless probably)

We all play poker, sure, but we play many different versions. That difference could be in the type of game, hold'em, omaha, stud, or mixed. It could be in the style of game, whether it be cash games, SNGs, or MTTs. And it could also be where and how we play, live or online. Now, there are people who are good at omaha, suck at hold'em. There are people who are amazing at cash games, can't last 5 minutes in a MTT. There are tons of great SNGs players who would be lost in a MTT field. We consider these players to be great at their own specific 'study' of poker. I think the same can be said for live and online. There are very few pros before the poker boom who have adjusted and played online successfully, a very big exception to this would be PA and maybe DB/Gus if you want to call them successful. The reason most online players would not be as good as live is because of the way online compares to live. Online you see 4x as many hands, can generally figue out players better (not reads, but the style they play) and so on. Many online players cannot adjust to having to play so slow, with such great concentration and study to play a NLHE cash game. The same can be said for live players trying to play online. They are lost at playing so many hands and playing more or less by feel than sitting there staring at how a player acts during a hand.

It's like saying is A better than B because A beat C while B beat D, but C and D are equal, if that makes much sense lol

[Jer672]

this should be an argument where both sides agree to disagree. i'm not saying PA or KT are right, im just saying that they are obviously not gonna change their opinion.

[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]
this should be an argument where both sides agree to disagree. i'm not saying PA or KT are right, im just saying that they are obviously not gonna change their opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah this seems like a non-productive argument really for many reasons.

But that broccoli and cheese person sounds like they have life down pretty well.

[JokersAttack]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been a proponent of the online player side of the argument for a while now but this just makes me do a 180. I mean who could be better suited to answer this question than PA?

I am not saying im convinced overall but this makes the endless arguement slightly more interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have been a proponent of the online player side of the argument for a while now but this just makes me do a 180. I mean who could be better suited to answer this question than PA?

I am not saying im convinced overall but this makes the endless arguement slightly more interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

im sure they are both wrong but not THAT wrong. there are probably a few online guys who would destroy these games and most would probably take quite a while to adjust (if they were able to) and be big losers at first. Keep in mind David is purposely asking about ultra-deep 10 handed tables in order to get the answer he thinks will get him the most attention.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the answer to all this is simple. Online guys see a lot more hands and are generally just all around smarter than the old school love pros. IF and a big IF, the live guys are better at live deep stacked poker, then it would just be a matter of the top online NL pros dedicating themselves to the nuances of deep stacked play and then it would be all over for the live guys. And obviously with 100bb stacks it's not even close. The online guys would destroy the live guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

and you don't think the opposite is true for the live guys? you don't think if they farted around with 100bb stacks for a few months, they couldn't torture the online games? if so, why not?

[leatherass]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the answer to all this is simple. Online guys see a lot more hands and are generally just all around smarter than the old school love pros. IF and a big IF, the live guys are better at live deep stacked poker, then it would just be a matter of the top online NL pros dedicating themselves to the nuances of deep stacked play and then it would be all over for the live guys. And obviously with 100bb stacks it's not even close. The online guys would destroy the live guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

and you don't think the opposite is true for the live guys? you don't think if they farted around with 100bb stacks for a few months, they couldn't torture the online games? if so, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because A. they never have and if they could they would be doing it already. I mean these guys go to the smelly casino all day and have sick variance at times. So many are broke. They could be grinding the cash games online and making supplemental money.

Plus so many of them are street smart kind of guys. Aren't real good with numbers etc. Lots are just plain stupid. Not that all of the online guys are brillinat, but many are. My poker buddies are ivey league grads and successful wall street guys etc. How many of the live guys could graduate from an ivey league school...lol. Half probably don't even have a high school diploma.

Plus it's hard to adjust to different games when you gain your experience so slowly. How are they going to make huge adjustments and use data to make these adjustments when they can't do it as fast as online guys. I just think overall that if they could do it they would. I mean why not have an extra source of income while lying in bed w/ your laptop?

[jimpo]

WHY CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?