Hello to Andy and others who are....

[SittingBull]

interested in A. Glazer's article on Online vs B&M.
See Psychology section--"Online Poker Vs Live Poker" by eMarkm for a link.

Happy pokering,
Sitting Bull

[Andy B]

Larry, I've read the article. It does not say that winning on-line is any more or less difficult than winning in a casino environment; it merely outlines the differences. I really don't see any reason why one should be inherently easier than the other. If "reading" people is a huge part of your game, then on-line is certainly not for you. I can't read people, because about 3% of my opponents ever do anything that makes sense to me anyway. I happen to enjoy the social interaction of live games, and my wife won't let me have the credit cards, so I play live only.

Anyway, if a $2/4 game with a $.50 ante and a $1 bring-in is beatable in spite of a $4.50 rake and a $1 jackpot drop, then I would submit that a $1/2 game with a $.25 ante and a $.50 bring-in with only a $1 rake and no jackpot drop must be beatable other considerations being reasonably equal. I have no idea how the $1/2 players on Paradise compare to the $2/4 players at Canterbury Park, and I'm not particularly interested in doing any field research, but I'm guessing that there aren't any Chip Reeses floating around Paradise's micro-limit tables. If you can offer some compelling reason why his on-line game would be unbeatable, I might change my position, but I don't think that such a reason exists. I will continue to tell people that the ante or rake alone will not make a game unbeatable. They are factors in the beatability of any game, to be sure, but the most important factor is the difference in ability between you and your opponents. If you are much better than your opponents, you can beat a 10% rake. If you're not, you can't. Simple as that.

[Vehn]

Just as an aside, Andy, occasionally I'll go play $2/$4 hold'em at CP at the same table as a friend of mine (and of course knock back a few..) and we've essentially determined that its impossible for both of us to win while at the same table because of the rake.

[Andy B]

I can't beat the $2/4 hold'em game either. $6/12, $15/30, $30/60, I can beat. $2/4 I can't. I think the stud game is easier to beat for a number of reasons. Stud players, as a group, are more passive, meaning that I can controll the betting to a much greater degree. The additional betting round in stud usually makes for bigger pots. I don't think that many $2/4 hold'em pots get much above $40. Lots of $2/4 stud pots get above $45, so there is a portion of it that goes unraked. This is not insignificant.

Straightforward play gets the money in an easy game, but I think that this is more true in stud than it is in hold'em. In stud, if you think you have the best hand, it is usually correct to bet. This is not always true at hold'em because the pot gets so big before the flop. I have played some long and very successful stud sessions without check-raising once. I don't think that this would be possible in a hold'em game.

If you and your friend are in the same hyper-raked game, that might interfere with your ability to win, but how often are you guys in the same pot? It shouldn't make a huge difference. I play a lot more hands in low-limit stud than I do in hold'em, so if there is another good player in the pot, it's more likely that we will lock horns than if we're in the same hold'em game.

I'm reminded of one of my early forays into $30/60 stud/8. There were five players who ranged from pretty good to professional, and three certified live ones. I observed a phenomenon that I'd never seen before, but I've seen a few times since. The three live ones were in every pot, more or less. Every once in a while, one of the good players would jump into the fray. If two of us jumped into the fray, we had the makings of a big pot. Mostly, the live ones pushed their chips back and forth, and once in a while one of the other players would jump in and pick up half a pot. I found it quite remarkable at the time.

I prefer $3/6 stud for when I'm boozing with my buddies, although my last $8/16 stud/8 session was the most profitable beer I've ever had. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif Hey, maybe you guys could both beat the game if you laid off the sauce. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[SittingBull]

is that online players,in ANY limit game,are usually much better players than their B&M counterparts.
This is the main reason Y this micro limit game would be virtually unbeatable.
The online players are more dedicated and knowledge /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif able than players at similar limits in the B&M's.

Happy pokering,Andy
Sitting Bull

[Andy B]

Dedicated, knowledgeable players probably have better things to do with their time than play $1/2. They might be better than the $2/4 players that I've played against (they couldn't be that much worse), but the rake is a lousy dollar. The game should still be beatable. To be sure, the poster couldn't get hurt too badly playing it.

If you wanted to make a bet large enough to make it worth my while, I'd be willing to bet that I could beat the Paradise $1/2 game over, say, 100 hours. This in spite of the fact that my brain generally shuts down when I'm sitting in front of a computer (just look at some of my posts).

The 2-4 with a .25 ante and $1 bring in is a much better game on Paradise than the 1-2 with the same ante and bring in. I think there are more good players playing 2-4 on paradise, than at the low stakes tables in a typical b&m casino, but also more REALLY bad players. I've seen way more flagrant tilt online than live -- with people literally betting and raising every time until their money is gone.

[SittingBull]

U are one of the "rare poker breeds".
No,I refuse to bet because I HATE to gamble! LOL!

Happy pokering,Andy!
Sitting Bull /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

[SittingBull]

everything that I stated in this thread was purely spectulative. I have NO experience playing stud for real money online.
I,personally,don't believe I can beat ANY stud game online because I can't keep track of the folded cards like I can at a B&M.
I also have a very low attention span online.
I also miss the social aspect of NOT playing at a B&M.
I NEVER did care much about video poker,
anyway!LOL!
Since I like people,I /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif am more of a social animal.
Happy pokering,MRB!
Sitting Bull

I, too, much prefer playing live. I live 2 hours from the nearest casino, have a demanding job and two young children, so I don't get to go too often. Internet poker let me get a couple hundred hours of experience in a couple of months, hours it would have taken a couple of years to get live. There is nothing like the social interaction, excitement and overall experience of playing live. I'd do it once or twice a week and never play online if a casino was within half an hour of me.

[Vehn]

If you and your friend are in the same hyper-raked game, that might interfere with your ability to win, but how often are you guys in the same pot? It shouldn't make a huge difference. I play a lot more hands in low-limit stud than I do in hold'em, so if there is another good player in the pot, it's more likely that we will lock horns than if we're in the same hold'em game.

True, but essentially what happens is the "fish factor" is reduced significantly by having another solid player taking up a seat in the game. When the rake+toke is 1.5 big bets per hand, that can mean a lot.

Speaking of checkraising, after a session of hold'em at CP I can count the number of times I checkraise on 2 fingers at most - because most people at $8/$16 and below are so passive and so afraid of scare cards going for a checkraise very frequently results in a missed bet or a free card - and I'm sure you've seen how often hands get checked down on the river when someone "only" has top pair. Then again my sessions are usually only 4 hours at most.

p.s. I played HE last night - and oh my god did Jeff get pissed off at me /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif Oh well.... ship it.