live or online

[fearme]

most poker hours spent online for me by far, 95%
what about u??

[Onaflag]

Online weeknights. B&M weekends and toss Thursday night into the weekends.

Hours? 50/50
Hands? Online wins. And it's not close.

Onaflag.........

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

~99.7% online. B&M is slowtacular.

[Onaflag]

I believe to maximize one's exposure to the game and gain valuable experience, there should be a healthy mix of the two. In most cases, the level you play at B&M is much higher than online. For example, if you were a bonus whore at .50/1 and played 3/6 live, would that not be about the same as 4 tabling online? It is six times the level with a slower rate of deal and you would see more people to a flop there than you do online in many cases.

So, sure, it's slower, but a heck of a lot more fun than grinding your way through poker life exclusively online. I like having two seperate BRs. One in Neteller and one in my underwear drawer.

Onaflag..............

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe to maximize one's exposure to the game and gain valuable experience, there should be a healthy mix of the two. In most cases, the level you play at B&M is much higher than online. For example, if you were a bonus whore at .50/1 and played 3/6 live, would that not be about the same as 4 tabling online? It is six times the level with a slower rate of deal and you would see more people to a flop there than you do online in many cases.

So, sure, it's slower, but a heck of a lot more fun than grinding your way through poker life exclusively online. I like having two seperate BRs. One in Neteller and one in my underwear drawer.

Onaflag..............

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wouldn't. First rake, 2nd Tip, 3rd 6x needed bankroll, and 4th no reload or deposit bonuses.

If you like playing live more that's fine. Just don't lie to yourself about benefits. I don't see any positives financially in live play unless you are able to beat a limit higher than avaialble online.

[AncientPC]

I've played about 6 hours live total.

I've played 60 hours online in March.

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
most poker hours spent online for me by far, 95%
what about u??

[/ QUOTE ]

I enjoy live poker regularly but like the convenience of online and spend much more time online that in the poker rooms.

[SinCityGuy]

There's no way I can play live and get paid $20,000 per year just for playing, on top of my poker winnings.

[Onaflag]

[ QUOTE ]
No it wouldn't. First rake, 2nd Tip, 3rd 6x needed bankroll, and 4th no reload or deposit bonuses.

If you like playing live more that's fine. Just don't lie to yourself about benefits. I don't see any positives financially in live play unless you are able to beat a limit higher than avaialble online.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. Easy cowboy. You need to get outside more often.

Open up PokerTracker - Ring Game Player Statistics. Then click the Game Notes Tab - Get All. Then sort by BB. Did you make it that far? Good. Now tell me how many 16 BB pots you have won.

If you have a significant amount of data, I bet the number of pots over 12 BB are very rare. Where I regularly play, 12 BB pots are the norm and >16 BB pots happen every couple hours, sometimes more frequently.

Now, I'm not saying that every B&M is the same, because they differ according to day of the week, time of day/night and table/game selection is very important.

I am sick of one-trick-ponies like yourself blaming the rake and tip on decreased winnings at B&Ms. Per pot, it is barely a friggin BB. Is there a difference? Yes. Of course. But that difference does not outweigh the larger pot sizes and looser, more inexperienced players.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any positives financially in live play unless you are able to beat a limit higher than avaialble online.

[/ QUOTE ]

This ridiculous statement shows that you only play online. That's fine. There is nothing wrong with that. Just don't lie to yourself and others about a subject you know nothing about.

I will say it again. I belive a mixture of both types of play is healthy for the aspiring poker player.

That is all I tried to say in the first place.

Onaflag.............

[lefty rosen]

If I could even take the bus to a huge casino in my city I would go and play live, but I can't so I have to pay 10 to 15 every time I want to drive to a casino near my city. I also could have to wait a up to 4 hours for a table. Play a higher raked game that while easier is way more aggravating. It's an easy choice for me........ /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No it wouldn't. First rake, 2nd Tip, 3rd 6x needed bankroll, and 4th no reload or deposit bonuses.

If you like playing live more that's fine. Just don't lie to yourself about benefits. I don't see any positives financially in live play unless you are able to beat a limit higher than avaialble online.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. Easy cowboy. You need to get outside more often.

Open up PokerTracker - Ring Game Player Statistics. Then click the Game Notes Tab - Get All. Then sort by BB. Did you make it that far? Good. Now tell me how many 16 BB pots you have won.

If you have a significant amount of data, I bet the number of pots over 12 BB are very rare. Where I regularly play, 12 BB pots are the norm and >16 BB pots happen every couple hours, sometimes more frequently.

Now, I'm not saying that every B&M is the same, because they differ according to day of the week, time of day/night and table/game selection is very important.

I am sick of one-trick-ponies like yourself blaming the rake and tip on decreased winnings at B&Ms. Per pot, it is barely a friggin BB. Is there a difference? Yes. Of course. But that difference does not outweigh the larger pot sizes and looser, more inexperienced players.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any positives financially in live play unless you are able to beat a limit higher than avaialble online.

[/ QUOTE ]

This ridiculous statement shows that you only play online. That's fine. There is nothing wrong with that. Just don't lie to yourself and others about a subject you know nothing about.

I will say it again. I belive a mixture of both types of play is healthy for the aspiring poker player.

That is all I tried to say in the first place.

Onaflag.............

[/ QUOTE ]

If there was a live game that had pot avg twice as large and players twice as bad, online would still be better.
Why? I'd just play 5 tables. If the players were 4 times as bad I'd play 9 tables. Think about this.

[Onaflag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No it wouldn't. First rake, 2nd Tip, 3rd 6x needed bankroll, and 4th no reload or deposit bonuses.

If you like playing live more that's fine. Just don't lie to yourself about benefits. I don't see any positives financially in live play unless you are able to beat a limit higher than avaialble online.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. Easy cowboy. You need to get outside more often.

Open up PokerTracker - Ring Game Player Statistics. Then click the Game Notes Tab - Get All. Then sort by BB. Did you make it that far? Good. Now tell me how many 16 BB pots you have won.

If you have a significant amount of data, I bet the number of pots over 12 BB are very rare. Where I regularly play, 12 BB pots are the norm and >16 BB pots happen every couple hours, sometimes more frequently.

Now, I'm not saying that every B&M is the same, because they differ according to day of the week, time of day/night and table/game selection is very important.

I am sick of one-trick-ponies like yourself blaming the rake and tip on decreased winnings at B&Ms. Per pot, it is barely a friggin BB. Is there a difference? Yes. Of course. But that difference does not outweigh the larger pot sizes and looser, more inexperienced players.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any positives financially in live play unless you are able to beat a limit higher than avaialble online.

[/ QUOTE ]

This ridiculous statement shows that you only play online. That's fine. There is nothing wrong with that. Just don't lie to yourself and others about a subject you know nothing about.

I will say it again. I belive a mixture of both types of play is healthy for the aspiring poker player.

That is all I tried to say in the first place.

Onaflag.............

[/ QUOTE ]

If there was a live game that had pot avg twice as large and players twice as bad, online would still be better.
Why? I'd just play 5 tables. If the players were 4 times as bad I'd play 9 tables. Think about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about it and did a little research. This might explain it a little better. (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf)

Onaflag...........