online much tougher than b & m?

[threepines]

Are ring games tougher on-line or at b & m cardrooms?

I play the Bellagio 15-30 and 30-60 and Mirage 20-40 games 6 or so trips a year. I'm often there on weekdays. My impression is that, on average, the games are tougher on-line. One reason: the ability of pros and semi-pros to multi-table and VPIP 20% or less contributes to tighter, more aggressive games. Your thoughts? Keep in mind that most 2 + 2ers practice game selection and thus don't even see the action in some of the tighter on-line games.

Am I taking a biased sample by posting this on the internet forum?

If this has been discussed before, sorry. Please direct me to the relevant thread.

[Benal]

I'd say the general consensus on this forum is that online games are tougher.

[LSUfan1]

I could be wrong here, but I would assume as you move up the levels the games become closer. At 3/6 B&M you get 8 seeing the flop routinely, whereas online you have to search to get games this juicy(there are some). Once you get above the 10/20 level I would assume(perhaps incorrectly) that the skill level live approaches the skill level online(not equal, but approaching).

I am a low limit player, and as such I can say with certainty that at the lower levels online is much tougher than B&M. Once the levels increase I would only be taking a guess!

[GrannyMae]

My impression is that, on average, the games are tougher on-line.

with the exception of the biggest games, i would agree that the games in a B&M are much, much easier.

[Rudbaeck]

Online 3/6 plays like b&m 20/40 imho. I'm starting to hate micro limits, so many fishies go there. Party should just scratch all limits under 3/6 /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Online 3/6 plays like b&m 20/40 imho. I'm starting to hate micro limits, so many fishies go there. Party should just scratch all limits under 3/6 /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That's about right. The main difference is that a good B&M 20/40 player making $60 per hour might lose $2000 on a bad session. A good 3/6 multitabler with a rake rebate can make $60 per hour and might lose $300 on a bad session.

[morgant]

i may be in the minority, in that i fare much better playing online than live. there are so many differences that comparing the two might not be fair. i love to play live, for entertainment value, but for bankroll and monetary purposes, i play online.

for some reason, i am much more comfortable putting 1k on a pair of aces on the internet then i am in real life. this is easily explained and understood but dats da way it is for me.

dont think i added to the thread, but those are my preferences.

[AncientPC]

I'm the same way. I was depositing $300 cash into an ATM the other day and it felt like a huge wad of money and made me nervous. I usually carry less than $20 cash and charge everything to a credit card.

On the other hand, pushing all in with a $200 stack online doesn't really phase me, as if it being on a computer screen makes it more of a video game than a card game with money involved.

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
i may be in the minority, in that i fare much better playing online than live.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to stop grinning when you get a hand. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[threepines]

I'm with you in thinking that on-line is more profitable (at least at low and mid-level games). However, the consensus seems to be that a given game is going to be softer live than on-line.

[SamJack]

[ QUOTE ]
Are ring games tougher on-line or at b & m cardrooms?

I play the Bellagio 15-30 and 30-60 and Mirage 20-40 games 6 or so trips a year. I'm often there on weekdays. My impression is that, on average, the games are tougher on-line. One reason: the ability of pros and semi-pros to multi-table and VPIP 20% or less contributes to tighter, more aggressive games. Your thoughts? Keep in mind that most 2 + 2ers practice game selection and thus don't even see the action in some of the tighter on-line games.

Am I taking a biased sample by posting this on the internet forum?

If this has been discussed before, sorry. Please direct me to the relevant thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

My impression from my limited play in the B&M games are that indeed they are easier than on line.

This is especially true on weekend nights. You get tons of first time players who barely know the rules.

SamJack

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm with you in thinking that on-line is more profitable (at least at low and mid-level games). However, the consensus seems to be that a given game is going to be softer live than on-line.

[/ QUOTE ]

So right, you are never going to sit in a live $3/6 game as tight as a good game of 3/6 on party. Unless you are playing weekday around noon I doubt you'll find a live 10/20 with as many tight and skilled players in it either.

[mosta]

3-6, eg, I've never seen a party table go capped 7-10 ways preflop for the majority of the hands over several rounds. this is not unusual live. 15-30, for the one or two guys that make a party game really good (and that's not to say that the rest of the players are great, but the one or two maniacs/total and complete idiots), you expect to find 4-6 players like that in a live 15-30 game. good online game: Ooo, 2 cold callers. average live game: 6 cold callers. if only they'd let me multitable in a cardroom.