LIVE GAMES vs. INTERNET GAMES

[squiffy]

Bitten by the internet poker bug, I have gotten back into live play as well. I am convinced that the live players are weaker and swim more.

(1) Less education.
(2) Less money.
(3) Less poker literate
(4) More impatient

Internet players can afford to buy a $500 computer and pay $50 a month for internet service. They are computer literate and are more likely to read and speak English. They are more likely to read poker books and more likely to have access to websites on poker strategy. I think they are more likely to have more money, education, and intelligence than the AVERAGE LIVE PLAYER.

The online player can afford to be more patient. He can take brakes, watch tv, do other things while waiting for huge cards.

The live player may just have driven a long distance to play for several hours. He may be tired after a long day at work. He probably plays more hands just for the sake of entertainment.

I understand internet poker offers a lot of benefits which we have discussed here. And I enjoy them. But on the very narrow question of whether the average live game or the average internet game is softer. (Let's say comparing both on a Sat. night at 7 p.m.)

I would have to vote for LIVE $1-$2 being easier to beat than INTERNET $1-$2.

Also think about places like Las Vegas and Atlantic City. There have got to be more drunken non-internet saavy non-computer literate people there on a Sat. night. And a computer junkie playing internet poker at home on a Sat. night, has got to be a more conservative player than a drunken construction worker who has just driven 8 hours to play poker for the weekend at Vegas or Atlantic City.

Your friendly neighborhood Squiffy.

Again, I am not saying LIVE PLAY IS BETTER than INTERNET PLAY. Just that the average game is probably looser at low limits.

What about high limits anybody with more experience have any basis for comparison?

[snoopdarr]

I agree 100%. I play in a live 4/8 game regularly, and on nights and weekends, it is a cakewalk compared to 5/10 on party, 4/8 on ub, or 3/6 on ub. And that's without considering yummy deli comps or hottie coctail waitresses...

[thomastem]

I agree that live is softer. If you are a hot looking chic and sit down at a table the $15-$30 games may become like $3-$6 for her.

For us normal people being social or humorous and the effect it has on people is also much greater live.

Now if only I could sit at 3 tables live at once....

[crockpot]

i agree with you here except on two points.

- at low limits, increased rake and dealer tokes cut into your profit a lot.

- you get a lot fewer hands dealt per hour in live games.

i definitely agree that even with a slight increase in rake and dealer tokes, the profit per hand is higher live, but you will only get half as many hands, so you have to take that into consideration.

that said, there is no substitute for the cardroom experience, assuming you're at a table with people who are having fun.

[squiffy]

Good points!!! My recent forays into live play have been just an hour each. So the rake and tokes didn't have much of an impact. And both times I had a lucky run of cards, which was far from normal.

It's just so frustrating for me online. I have played nearly 3000 hands, probably more and am literally dead even.
Of course, I get the bonus. But I want at least a small profit on my play.

I need to start posting hands. There must be huge leaks in my play if I am making zero profit at low limits online.

But as soon as I rake in a pot with a nut flush, within half an hour I lose it back when my AA gets cracked!!!!!!!!!

Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

[tiltboy]

[ QUOTE ]
It's just so frustrating for me online. I have played nearly 3000 hands, probably more and am literally dead even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Runs like these can happen to anyone, perhaps yours just came at the beginning of your online playing life. I agree, we should all examine our games and posting questions to say the small stakes forum about particular hands is a great way to get feedback. Reading how other people view the game has opened my eyes a lot. I wouldn't post hand histories however, but rather summarize them using narrative else they are too hard to follow and you may not get much feedback.

[rusty JEDI]

[mostsmooth]

i think the time and day determines which would tend to be softer
who is home playing poker on the internet on a saturday night?
who is in the casino playing poker on tuesday afternoon?

[Uppercut]

My live play is limited to about 13 hours over three days at pechanga, but the 2-4 game I was playing there was much looser and easier than the .5-1 games at Paradise. That is one of the reasons why I switched to Party, where the .5-1 games are as loose as the 2-4 live games I have played.

[lefty rosen]

If you are playing anything less then 10/20 live and you want to play for money like a job, don't bother with live, factor in the time, gas, high food, higher rake and tips you have no shot at being anything but a marginal winner after expenses, I know I played live semi pro, and the expenses were too severe for what the return was....

[beach_bum]

Judging from my limited online experience, at limits 5-10 and above the online games seem much worse than live games. Oddly enough, the 3-6 online games are better than anything I've seen in a casino. I can't make a comparison between live and online 3-6 because I've rarely played below 10-20 in live games.

[crazy canuck]

While on average, the live games are way easier to beat, on-line you can find and sit in the best game on the net and you can play multiple tables. Suppose, you want to make $20/hr. Live, you play a beatable $10-20 game. On-line you can play more than that by playing 2 3-6 games at party (with less variance and more comfort). But if you want to make $40/hr than it might be easier to find a soft $20-40 live game.