Brick and Mortar Easy?

[HandHack1]

I play pretty much exclusively online poker. Every once in awhile however, I go to the Casinos every now and then.

What I find is that the Casino games are easier to beat than on the internet. Does anyone else find this true? And why?

[ QUOTE ]
I play pretty much exclusively online poker. Every once in awhile however, I go to the Casinos every now and then.

What I find is that the Casino games are easier to beat than on the internet. Does anyone else find this true? And why?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, it really depends on the casino. I have played in LA, Vegas, and Niagara Falls - and I would say that you are probably right except for LA.

I think a big part of it is that usually, within 5-10 hands, you can pick out who are the real players and who are the ones who you can beat - you can sense it through factors not available online such as body language and how they act when betting and folding - do they act out of turn? do they forget to post their blinds? do they have that "deer in the headlights" look?

And so what makes it easier isn't so much that the players are better or worse - its just that online, its much harder to tell.

I say that LA is the exception because there, while the players may not be highly skilled, most of them are pretty hard-core and have played A LOT of hands.

[pudley4]

It's almost universally accepted that online is harder than B&M (at the same limits). One of the biggest reasons is the difference in the number of hands per hour. Online, you can get 60 hands/hour (at a full table; shorthanded tables can be around 100/hr). You can also multitable. So playing 4 tables you can get 240 hands/hour. In a B&M cardroom, you'll maybe get 35 hands/hr. So you can play a lower limit online and still have the same win rate ($/hr) and have less variance.

My take...

I think online is much harder than B&M because of aggression.

Aggressive players are much more likely to adopt optimum strategy at poker... and on-line players balls increase by like 125%.

When someone doesn't have to look you in the eye... it's way eaiser for them to cap it with bottom pair and/or re-raise all in with a draw.

At lower limit B&M casino's you usually don't see this uber-aggressive nature.

[ohnonotthat]

Good point - nice job.

*

"Dead on b-lls accurate" ? ? ?

- "Yeah, it's a industry term"

*

(I just dated myself but that is one of the funniest lines ever heard in a film).

[paperchamp]

[ QUOTE ]
My take...

I think online is much harder than B&M because of aggression.

Aggressive players are much more likely to adopt optimum strategy at poker... and on-line players balls increase by like 125%.

When someone doesn't have to look you in the eye... it's way eaiser for them to cap it with bottom pair and/or re-raise all in with a draw.

At lower limit B&M casino's you usually don't see this uber-aggressive nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the best post in this thread and I am very suprised nobody has even mentioned it.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the best post in this thread and I am very suprised nobody has even mentioned it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. That about sums up the root issues, because by and large, there are the same percentages of good and bad players both online and in the B&M casinos. The difference is the aggression factors of both those good and bad players, and the ways in which you must change your game for the different casinos.

For me, I have better results in B&M poker rooms, and the lesson I would take from that is that I have more EV playing in that setting. In other words, it's easier for me. Others may find online play to be the most profitable because of their own skill sets.

I find B&M so much easier than online. Here is something I posted on the gutshot forum

[ QUOTE ]
I prefer to swallow them alive and wriggling.

It seems from reading here and at other poker related forums up and down the globe that the majority feel the internet offers the best pickings for a competent poker player. If you hadn’t experienced both bricks and mortar and online play you’d be forgiven for thinking that the internet was the largest fish pool ever created and the card clubs were all frequented by large fish of the toothy, blood hungry variety. I couldn’t disagree more with this generally held view. Bare in mind I’m not talking games involving big bucks here, but the kinds of tournaments you can enter and still feed and cloth the kids when you loose. I’ve racked up the most hours, like a lot of recent converts to the game, online in the comfort of my own home.

This year I’ve taken the plunge and started playing live at card rooms. The first difference I noticed is that the standard of play is ‘visibly’ far worse than online. No longer do you have the problem of figuring out whether a particular player is doing some odd moves in a bid to mix it up or be tricky. You just have to observe most players for a round or two and it is immediately obvious who has a clue and who doesn’t.
Notice that a player never looks at the pot or if they do very briefly and with little interest (to them it is either big or small)? They don’t know pot odds. Online that info wouldn’t be available immediately.
Are they making constant beginners mistake and asking for rule clarifications? Again another gem of info, not given online.
Are they drunk, distracted, nervous? Easily seen here, not so online.
If you frequent the same card room for any length of time you find yourself on tables where you know most of the opposition. No longer are you facing a random table made up from a pool of thousands of unknowns.
Of course all these things apply equally to yourself and you have to be more aware of your own shortcomings, but if you’re aware of everyone else’s your half way there.
Another factor, a lot of online players ‘seem’ to read more literature on the game, and appear to be more aware of tournament dos and don’ts.

The old stalwarts of cash games seem to be under the impression that they can take the skills learnt in cash and get by with that alone. They don’t think they need to change their A game to incorporate these new tournament concepts. Online players are used to playing tournaments, a lot having never played any other type of poker. Online if you go out, you can be back in a game within minutes. Playing live that might mean your lot for that evening. Players may hold back from risking an early end to their evening’s poker entertainment and they end up giving an observant opponent the edge they need.

So to all those low stakes players scared of mixing it up with the ‘big boys,’ take those skills you’ve learnt from many hours of fishing and go and catch some live ones. Believe me the taste is that much more satisfying.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
IIn a B&M cardroom, you'll maybe get 35 hands/hr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn! What casino do you play at? Here in LA at The Bike we're lucky to get 25 hand/hr at NL (with a full or nearly full table).

[dogmeat]

[ QUOTE ]
It's almost universally accepted that online is harder than B&M (at the same limits). One of the biggest reasons is the difference in the number of hands per hour. Online, you can get 60 hands/hour (at a full table; shorthanded tables can be around 100/hr). You can also multitable. So playing 4 tables you can get 240 hands/hour. In a B&M cardroom, you'll maybe get 35 hands/hr. So you can play a lower limit online and still have the same win rate ($/hr) and have less variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

How, exactly, does either the number of hands per hour, or multitabling increase the variance, or make the game harder?

If you can play a specific limit with a certain win rate, playing more hands per hour does not lower your win rate - or am I missing something here?

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]