Complaints about online poker and recordkeeping

[JoshuaMayes]

I have read a fair number of posts from players complaining that internet poker is rigged and/or different from B&M poker. The theme of these posts is often "I am a consistent winner at the B&M, but I can't seem to win online because the play is too bad, I take too many bad beats online etc." The responses to the posts usually give two explanations for the complainers experience. Some believe that the complainers are just experiencing the normal increase in unlikely events that should naturally accompany the greater volume of hands dealt online. Others point out that play generally is better on the internet at a certain limit than is play at the same limit in a B&M cardroom. It occurred to me recently that their might be another explanation. I surmise that many of the complainers are actually just all-around losing players who do not keep records, but who are forced to confront their online losses because they must redeposit to keep playing and/or make withdrawals to realize their winnings. When these players go to the B&M, they pull $100 from their wallet, and conveniently remember only the times that they put $150 or $200 back in at the end of the night. And if they don't keep records, who is to say that they aren't actually lon-term winners at the B&M? The much more cumbersome transactions necessary to fund and withdraw from online poker accounts makes it much more difficult to conveniently forget how much one has deposited and withdrawn. To top it off, most online poker sites keep a tansaction history, which even the most self-delusional player would have difficulty ignoring. Most of the players in my home game believe that they break even or win over the long run, but most of them are, in fact, substantial losers relative to the stakes we play. If these same players played online, they would not be able to fool themselves so easily, and might resort to the sort of conspiracy theories that abound on poker forums. After all, it is much easier to blame online poker for one's losses than it is to admit that one is a losing player in general. In short, I suspect that online poker gets a bad rap, not because of increased hand volume and the concomitant increase in statistically ulikely events, but because the nature of the monetary transactions that accompany online play force losing players to confront and/or admit their losses, if only to themselves. The increase in hand volume probably contributes, because these losing players lose faster as the number of hands dealt per hour increases, but I suspect that the forced quasi-recordkeeping has more to do with it than anything else. Any thoughts?

[KaiShin]

Someone steal your Enter key? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Yes the lack of strict recordkeeping is likely a factor in this. Most casino players I know don't keep a big Excel sheet with all their wins and losses recorded in it (including myself), so its much easier to believe you're a winning player simply because there is no evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, the other factors you mentioned are all true as well, so more than likely its just a combination of everything.

[Hellmouth]

So TRUE!!!

[Warren Whitmore]

I agree. Self decepetion just isent as efficient when jumping though hoops to fund your account.

[JTrout]

sorry, but no way am I reading that. My eyes would be crossed by the end /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

ps. welcome to 2+2! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[toots]

Yah.

Many happy returns.

Please.

Good hypothesis, but you might consider the text layout before you ENTER another one of these.

[JoshuaMayes]

Lol, thanks for the replies. Sorry about the poor formatting, it was my first post /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[KidPokerX]

Strong point. I think it's a combination of all factors that make onlineers realize they are losing. Hands/hour is the main cause of course, but in general I would agree that the majority of losing online players are also losing B&M losers who have not yet realized.

[TennesseeKid]

I think your hypothesis is true but another factor to consider is that even if some of these players are winning in "real life" it is in home games against people near their own play level--meaning, terrible. I can beat my brother and Granma Jo but I lose online, what gives?

[bdk3clash]

Other than the lack of paragraphs, I agree with everything you've said in this post. So far, no one whose play I recpect has considered online poker anything but insanely profitable and (at least on the sites we all know about) on the level.

[Al Schoonmaker]

I agree with your point about feeling cheated because of poor record keeping. In fact, I made that point in "Paranoia at the poker table" a few years ago in "Poker Digest," and I'll make it again in "Taking notes, Part II" in "Card Player." Let me quote from that PD article.

"In fact, many losers believe they beat live games just because they keep bad records. They forget how many chips they buy, or how often and how much they lose, but exaggerate their good nights. Their results online are the same as in live games, but the online sites keep accurate records. I am sure that selective forgetting is a major cause for the online losses of many self-proclaimed winners.
Most of the 'I've been cheated!' complainers never seriously consider these other possibilities, especially the one about bad records. They insist: 'I'm a good player. I have always won before, and cheating is the only possible explanation for my online losses.'"

It's all part of the common need to deny reality, which is the topic of my current articles in our eZine. You will see denial EVERYWHERE, but it is particularly common in our world.

You must constantly fight against it because it will damage or destroy your bottom line.

Regards,

Al

[MicroBob]

those who claim to be big, cosnistent winners at B&M but still can't beat the online games because they're 'rigged' or the 'players call down too much' or whatever other reason probably are assumed by many of the 2+2 regulars to generally be losing players at the B&M as well...mostly for the reasons you go through.


Also - I don't think this is exclusive to poker players. I know many people who play slots or craps or whatever who claim to have some sort of system (their favorite machine....or leave after winning $150...or whatever) and many of them claim that they are break-even or slight winners overall.
This is pretty ridiculous of course considering the number of players who are long-term losers.


for a lot of slots, craps or losing poker-players....a night of losing $80 gets rounded in their heads to 'breaking-even' because they lost a fairly negligible amount.

A night of winning $245 gets rounded-up somehow to $300....or even $400 if they forget a buy-in somewhere in there.


And then...after playing 1 night a week for 10 straight weeks they will tend to remember a night where they think they lost $500....a night where they think they won $700....forget about all the minus $100 to $200 night in-between or call them break-even....and somehow come to the conclusion that they are a winning player.



Many people have many creative ways of denying reality.
I don't really know why exactly this is but I have seen it MANY MANY times.


I bet you could walk through a casino to the craps and BJ and slots players and ask those who play semi-frequently 'in your gambling life-time...are you Up, Down, or about Break-Even' and a ridiculously high number of players would answer break-even.
Same for losing poker-players too of course.