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

leatherass · #1 11-24-2007, 02:44 AM

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.

klownage · #2 11-24-2007, 02:45 AM

Yeah, this is seriously ridiculous to think that the top online pros would not be able to adjust to a full ring game well enough to have a good edge against most of the live pros.

EC10 · #3 11-24-2007, 02:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this is seriously ridiculous to think that the top online pros would not be able to adjust to a full ring game well enough to have a good edge against most of the live pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is really what it comes down to. it's absolutely absurd to assume that the likes of genius28, aba, durr, urindanger, etc would not be able to adjust to a full ring deep live game against the best live players. sure right now they might not be as good because don't have much experience.

also i agree with the sentiment that who cares because live poker is retarded and david sklansky is a creepy weirdo.

Hotel Detect · #4 11-24-2007, 02:47 AM

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 · #5 11-24-2007, 02:49 AM

David,

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

JSmith2007 · #6 11-24-2007, 02:55 AM

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

STA654 · #7 11-24-2007, 02:59 AM

Lets ask mike matusow his opinion.

I mean he's lost a lot of money on Full Tilt so obviously he has to respect the skill of the online players, right?

[Phill] · #8 11-24-2007, 04:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Lets ask mike matusow his opinion.

I mean he's lost a lot of money on Full Tilt so obviously he has to respect the skill of the online players, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

The flaw in this concept is easily gotton around with the classic "online isnt real poker" argument.

Fwiw, i think this argument is pretty silly - i also suspect PAs answer is swayed by the way DS asked it. There is a big difference between:

If today you were to gather the best ten full ring players around a table for a live game, how many of them would be online players?

If, given the time to adapt, how many players (if any) would the top ten full ring live players be internet players?

How many of the top ten cash game players in the world are internet players?

Three VERY different statements, where the one that is the broadest is the most important and the one that is the narrowest is the one that KT and PA have commented on.

Jer672 · #9 11-24-2007, 02:51 AM

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 · #10 11-24-2007, 02:59 AM

[ 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.