On-Line vs. B&M Play - Where do you do better and Why? (Long)

[Barry]

I have been tracking my on-line play and my B&M play for a big chunk of the year now. I have noticed a significant difference in my win rates at these 2 venues. I am interested in the experiences of others and, if there are differences, what might be the cause. Yes there are all of the factors that the folks cite as the benefits of online play, such as more hands per hour, multiple tables, lower rake, etc. But what about other factors, such as the quality of opponents, the value of being able to see the other players at a casino, less distractions, etc. Do they have a greater impact?

For what it is worth, I play a fair amount online, typically at 1 or 2 5/10 tables 3-5 times a week in the evening after work. Although I try to go every other weekend to Foxwoods, my schedule has prevented that and maybe I get there 3-4 weekends every 3 months. When I go, I play pretty much all of the time except to sleep and to eat, which sometimes I do at the table (eat that is), so I get in about 30 hours on a weekend. I have been to Vegas 3 times this year for a 5 day (more or less) trip and will be going again later this month. Typically I play 10/20 at Foxwoods and the Mirage and started out playing 8/16 at the Bellagio, but played 15/30 the last time that I was there. I am just starting to think about moving up to 20/40, but I don’t think that I am quite ready for that yet.

For the specifics, I am earning about 2.5 BB’s per hour in live play and with my recent bad streak online I am earning about 1.3 BB’s per hour in online play. Now I don’t really know how to calculate my SD on my live data, but my Poker Tracker has my SD at 13 BB’s per hour.

So why do I think this is true?

In my view, I think that the biggest factor is the quality of players. While there are quite a few fish online, there are a growing number of players that take it serious and are pretty decent such that they make it harder to get their money. At B&M there are still folks that view poker just as another form of gambling, expect to lose, and view it as an entertainment cost. Or perhaps they view it as their “social” activity. Plus there is also the inebriation factor as many still consume alcohol at the table. So in general, I think that the games are much softer live than online.

The other important factor in my judgement is being able to actually see the other player. When I make a post about a live hand, I try to give some information about the table and the other actors so others can get some sense of the player specifics that I considered with respect to my play. Perhaps Mike Caro overemphasizes it, but I think that the more time that you spend playing live in general and playing against any particular opponent the more you get a feel for styles of play and how well they really like their hand. Also you get to see the same players more often and for longer periods of time at B&M than on-line. Even in the 3 trips this year that I have made to Las Vegas I have a “mental” notebook on a number of players that I have seen over and over. This knowledge, in my view, is critical in making decisions regarding whether to lay down or call down a hand; whether a flop check/call by a player is just a loose call or whether you might be getting set up for a turn checkraise; or any other decisions that you make in the course of your play. On several occasions I have sat down with some folks that have played quite a bit online, but are just starting to play live. Many times they get hammered because they don’t pick up on the subtleties going on or they give off obvious tells and don’t control their emotions as well.

These are just my thoughts. Are there any concurring or opposing views? Does anyone else care?

[scotnt73]

i care /images/graemlins/laugh.gif. however ive never played offline in my life. it just sounds boring. The hands are slower and you have to put up with jerks. online i can watch tv with my wife while playing and i can jump up and down when i catch 4 of a kind.

[lil']

For some reason, I have better results online. I guess it's because I get to play more hands against weak opposition in a shorter frame of time. I have had sessions where I was stuck pretty good online, but could battle my way out of it and post a nice win. I don't have the time to do that live, as the game is so much slower.

I think part of my problem is that my live sessions are too short. I wish I had more time to go, but I don't.

[Vehn]

How many hours do you have logged at both? I suspect your live hours are under 300, correct?

[Barry]

It's just about 375 hours live and about 600 hours online. I agree that this amount of time is not statistically conclusive, but I think that it is indicative.

[Bob T.]

I never considered the question, because they are just different, and I choose one or the other depending on what I want from my experience.

Anyway, I looked, and I am pennies apart in my per hour, per table rate, so I probably make more online, because I can play multiple tables.

[morgant]

i would prefer to play live over online any day but one get always get what one wants. my overall win rate is better live. that may be due to the fact that i spent my time learning(spending $$) online, so i burned a bunch of $ in the beginning stages of my learning process. Just recently actually almost in corelation with joining this site about 3 months ago i have been making some sizeable cashouts online and almost breaking even, /images/graemlins/frown.gif overall online i am still down a hair, but not worried in the slightest as my game is getting better everyday.
Since i play as a hobby and i want to be good at i have to keep track of my winnings since that is the barometer of sucess in this game but i still value the entertainment over the pure dollars hence my preference for the casinos. I think the value of seeing live players and softer games could outweigh the benefits of multiple tables and faster hands. I am also writing this after my best Foxwoods 5/10 session to date. My live net winnings far surpass my online results(especially since they are still negative) while my online play time is probably 10-15 times that live. All in all though there are other costs with live that arent encountered on line. THe obvious toke and higher rake, for myself i need lodging, gas, not really meals since they are comped but at home they must be payed for. I am usually in a better frame of mind live, i like the feel of the cards the chips, it feels more real and i place more value on a bet than i do making a bet on an electronic screen. I like the people interaction, and mostly everyone is only there to play cards, at home online you have friends girlfriends, family that can get in your hair and take away from your game, another example of its lack of intensity online. In closing, when one can or does have too much of something it is often taken for granted(ie. online gaming), when you can have something in limited amounts it usually keeps its favor. Basic Supply and Demand. long winded and rambling, if you got this far you deserve a cookie.
-morg

[banditbdl]

I do better online but I believe its almost entirely a rake factor. I've played mostly 1/2 online just recently jumping up to 2/4. When I play live its 3/6 holdem at Canterbury Park. As an example of just how big the rake difference is I figure if I win a 9 BB pot online I'm losing 1/4 big bet to the rake. Contrastingly, if I win a similar pot playing live I'm giving up an entire big bet to the rake. ($4 dollar drop, $1 to the jackpot, and $1 toke.) The rake in the 3/6 game just eats up my profits, but I can't yet play any higher with my college student bankroll. I do get added info out of playing live (my favorite is the way players behind me routinely telegraph their preflop action.). However, it is not enough to cover my losses to the rake. For me online rake >> live-play advantages.

That said I'm not surprised this doesn't hold for you playing at higher limits where the rake is sucking away a smaller percentage of your profits and the online competition is starting to get stiffer in comparison to live.

[Vehn]

You should play higher then.

[salty]

I find Im better in a B&M situation because its easier to read players.The problem is I dont play live very often but I find it much easier to toss more hands live.There isnt the same level of boredom i guess.

In relation to the mental notes on players Barry mentioned that too is a great tool.I sat in on a game recently where two guys who I had played against before were both holding big stacks and I knew the reason they had them was that they call all the way with any hand as long as they have one pair min. and anyone who bluffs them better be prepared to lose.So I sat there patiently and caught 1 hand against the two of them and trebled my stack(pot lim in Ireland)

I was playing against this older lady again and a friend of mine had told me that she only bets the nuts.I got 55 on the button,she was the BB and there were maybe two other callers.The flop came A55 she bet out and while the next guy thought about it I looked at her and the vein in her neck was hopping.I put her on a full house A over 5s and gave her a small raise and true to form she bet the pot I bet all in and she nearly had a heart attack.

I have another guy who reaches for his ciggys when hes dealt a high pair and another who I know either has a hand or is bluffing by the speed of his bet.

I know if you take notes on line you can figure out peoples betting style or some of their bluffs but I still think B&M is easier to maintain your concentration and momentum.I feel a lot calmer live and really enjoy the people watching aspect of the game.

Thats my 2cents.

[BigEndian]

The trick with B&M though is you have to have a great memory for those things. Also, a regular crowd for the tells specific to a person.

- Jim

[nyholdem]

Ive played online for about 2 months. I am playing mostly 3/6 now after starting at 2/4. I averaged over 4BB/hr at 2/4 and now after a slow start I am up to 1.5BB/hr at 3/6

I am going to Las Vegas for my first "poker trip" next week.
I am planning to play 6/12 at the Mirage or 8/16 to 15/30 at the Bellagio. How will those games compare to the level I am playing online. Ill be sure to post here to let you know what I thought.

Thanks Scott

[Barry]

I have always been blessed by a very good memory, so I guess that that helps me in that regard.

[JTG51]

Well, since this started with you comparing the Foxwoods 10/20 to online play, I guess I'll jump in.

I'm not a real big fan of talking about specific win rates in a public forum (or in private for that matter) but I'll say that I do well in the Foxwoods 10/20 game and I make twice as much playing 3 tables of 2/4 on Party. That's after a pretty significant number of hours at both.

Of course, the majority of my hours in the Foxwoods 10/20 game were last spring and summer, and that game is a lot better now than it was then.

[BigEndian]

I haven't played live at those limites so I can't tell you first hand.

I will say that you should avoid the Mirage if smoke bothers you. It's bad enough there from the neighboring sports book that even the dealers complain about it.

- Jim

[Vehn]

I think to have an even moderately OK handle on your expectation you need 400 hours live or 200-250 hours online. I have 300 hours logged at $15/$30 and my win rate confidence ($10) is only 38%.

[JTG51]

I understand that. I'm well over both numbers.

There's definitely some wiggle room in my numbers. Much more so live than online, but I know my own play well enough to have a reasonable idea how much I should be winning, and my results are pretty close.

[morgant]

i have yet to play in vegas, but you have only played poker for 2 months at max. of 3/6 and you are going to jump into those limits in your first live playing experience??? if money is of no real issue godspeed, otherwise i tink you could tone down the limits a hair.....just a thought from a sleep deprived morgant

[Barry]

One rule of thumb that I heard here some time back is that you can play 2x live the limit that you play online.

By that rule, you should start out at the 6/12 at the Mirage. However, if you haven't played live yet, I would suggest the or 4/8 at the Bellagio to start to get a feel for the rhythm and protocol of live play. Then if you feel comfortable with the game then move up.

[Hallett]

[ QUOTE ]
One rule of thumb that I heard here some time back is that you can play 2x live the limit that you play online.

[/ QUOTE ]

Had not heard this before, but it is true for me. At B&M I play 6/12 (no other choices) and online I am most comfortable at 3/6. Very interesting!

[nyholdem]

I have played live, but just for about 10 hours before starting my play more seriously online. I thought about playing at the 6/12 game at the Mirage but I read somewhere on this forum that the 8/16 game at the Bellagio was a better game to play in.
I have read many books in the months preceeding my online play and have played thousands of hands on TTH.
I am fully aware that my learning process has just begun and I want to play in a game that I can test my skill but certainly not play at a level that is over my head. My bankroll is sufficient to play at either game.

What do you think

Thanks again Scott

[Bob T.]

I think you will be comforatable in the 6-12 game at the Mirage. With one exception, I have always felt that the 6-12 game that I was sitting in was beatable. The exception, was a game with only 5 2+2ers in it, and I think that the most likely candidate to come out ahead was the rake box. I don't have much experience with the 8-16 game at the Bellagio, I have only played in it twice, and it was very tight/aggressive both times. But my friend who lives there said that the games are usually much better than the ones I sat in, so I would guess that the games there are fairly variable.

[nyholdem]

Thanks for the advice, I will probably try both games and see how they work out.

If any of you other 2+2'ers will be in Vegas next week let me know, I'll be glad to buy the drinks. Just stay away from my table /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Thanks Scott