WHICH GAME IS MORE PROFITABLE????

[hbgolfpro]

Lets assume that we can beat 15-30 in the casino for about 1BB/hr. My question is.....would it be more profitable to play 3 tables of 4-8 online...as long as those three table are played well....or stick to one 15-30 game? Each game should produce appx. 1BB/hr......so whats the best way to go?

[astroglide]

the 4/8 game would require no travel, no waiting lists, no tips, and have less variance. that's what i would pick.

[hbgolfpro]

Thanks for your post. I wonder what the 4-8 game is beatable for online???

[ZeeJustin]

I agree w/ Astro.

[astroglide]

4/8 games are more rare, i would opt for 4 3/6 games on intertopspoker

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets assume that we can beat 15-30 in the casino for about 1BB/hr. My question is.....would it be more profitable to play 3 tables of 4-8 online...as long as those three table are played well....or stick to one 15-30 game? Each game should produce appx. 1BB/hr......so whats the best way to go?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since online poker is anywhere from 2 to 2.5 times faster than a live game, and since the rake is lower and you don't have to tip or spend money getting to and from the casino, you'll make more playing the 4-8 online game provided that your opponents are roughly similar in both games.

[astroglide]

his ratings were per hour. while the example doesn't make complete sense (1bb/hr 15/30 player should surely be better than 1bb/hr in 4/8, especially with nearly twice as many hands), that's the scope in which i answered it.

[ut bill]

in buying my seat in the poker stars one million tourney tomorrow? I'm asking $2,200 Firm. I can't play it right now, but if I can't sell, I will let wife play. If interested, contact Poker Stars support staff.
I hope I didn't break any rules by asking that here.

[TobDog]

Good point Astro, now that internet poker has more players than B&M poker, a base rate should be more now in terms of $ or bb per 100 hands rather than per hour. Many of B&M games are lucky to get down 40 hands per hour, games like stud and omaha(H/L is worse) maybe 30/hr on a good hour. Onlne 4 tables can do 60/hr per table thats 240 per hour which is what you might see in a 6 hour session B&M. This makes the luxury to the skilled players, you can play 3-6 multiple games and probably make similar to 15-30 in a casino without driving/tiping/waiting, the rake for 4 tables will cost higher rake per hand relative to the betting abounts, but probably lower overall costs, or you could play 1 or 2 15-30 games and make more per hour if you have the BR and should be able to make more long term $.

[mmcd]

If you can beat a decent live 15 game you can make much more playing Party's 15

[TobDog]

Yes, but online players at the same stakes (15-30) are better than their B&M eqivilents, right?

[hbgolfpro]

It stands to reason that at first glance, internet players should be weaker. Internet people living in Little Rock, Ar.......Des Moines, Ia......and other places in BFE now have a place to play. Maybe I am wrong, but I would rather play against 9 people from these places than 9 people that live in Las Vegas.

[TobDog]

This would seem to make logical reason, but the general belief here is that a 3-6 online plays way toughter than a 3-6 at say Commerce, the lower stakes online make it easier to have 25c-50c online as the "entry level" game where 3-6 in B&M is pretty much that same "entry level". Anyone?

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
It stands to reason that at first glance, internet players should be weaker. Internet people living in Little Rock, Ar.......Des Moines, Ia......and other places in BFE now have a place to play. Maybe I am wrong, but I would rather play against 9 people from these places than 9 people that live in Las Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is obviously going to be a lot of opinion and conjecture involved, but, personally, I believe that online games are tougher than their live versions. Those people beating a 15-30 game live for 1BB per hour will NOT all of a sudden beat 4x online games for 2BB per hour apiece (2 vs. 1 due to easily double the hands).

While it seems counterintuitive, live players are in general weaker than their online counterparts -- and I certainly would rather play against 9 random Las Vegas locals than 9 online 2+2'ers or otherwise, at least in the sense of my profitability.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[playerfl]

Has it ever been proven that multitabling reduces variance ?

[astroglide]

if you are trying to reach the long term flipping coins, you are better off flipping 6 at once than you are flipping 1 in the same amount of time.

[Moyer]

From my experience, it's very clear that online games are tougher than live. Many people playing live really just want to gamble. It's not easy to wait around for great hole cards, even for a disciplined player.

[playerfl]

is this if you start out with 6x the bankroll or the same bankroll ?

[Hallett]

I totally agree.

I play live 2-4, 4-8, 6-12, or 8-16 depending on my mood, bankroll, how many drinks etc.

I play online .50-1.00 up to 5-10, and I find 2-4 on Party is TOUGHER than 8-16 live. The loosest of all these games would not be the .50-1.00, it is easily the 6-12.

The place where I play 6-12 only spreads that game though, no others. I would expect that to be different in a larger room, which spread more games, and thus the gamblers have more choice.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
is this if you start out with 6x the bankroll or the same bankroll ?

[/ QUOTE ]
The bankroll you need is a function of your win rate, standard deviation, and the risk of ruin you are willing to accept. As long as your play doesn't deteriorate when you add tables, you don't need any additional bankroll. If your win rate per table suffers some when multitabling, you need a slightly larger bankroll.

In practice, 300BB is usually fine for a winning player who multitables. You don't need 6x the bankroll.

[Nick Moore]

I agree that there are probably a larger number of bad players online, but it is most likely a smaller percentage of the total number of players compared to the percentage of bad players in live card rooms. Online gambling sites are offering free advice, which leads to researching and learning how to play at sites such as this one, while the people in Vegas are either living there, or they are tourists in the hotel who want to gamble with the people they see on ESPN and the Travel Channel. Not to mention the fact that online you wouldn't normally drink for free.

[Nick Moore]

I also want to speculate on basing a rate on per 100 hands than per hour. While basing your expectation on a hundred hands can be good for monitoring your progress and your skill level, and finding out who is best at one level, this doesn't answer the question of "Is it worth it?" We get payed on a time based system. If I spend so many hours playing, I will average making so much money. This is the same with every job that isn't poker, so how much you make in poker should be compared to a job.

On another note, If in a B&M, they only average 40 hands an hour, someone who makes 1 bb an hour, is actually making 2 or more bb per 100 hands. Judging by per 100 hands, you would say that to make 60 dollars per 100 hands at one table would be more profitable than making sixteen dollars at three tables at a time (forty-eight). This is why we judge expectation by the hour, not per 100 hands, because everyone agreed that the three online tables would be worth more expectation.

[Louie Landale]

Yes, "is it worth it" questions are much better when the data is in $ per hour. An extreme example is Omahaha hi/lo which is VERY slow but worth a lot per hand.

In hero's case he needs to know how much money he makes online per hour to compare that to the BM hourly rate. He also needs to add travel and wait times to his BM results.

- Louie

[dogmeat]

If you see your win rate per 100 hands as completely different than your win rate per hour (or can't figure one or the other out) then I want to play on your table.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif