online vs B&M

i'm talking about limit holdem. i've only played online and i'm really tired of books with hand examples of the "game is 20/40. 3 players limp, you raise from the button and the blinds plus the limpers call" type. basically all the examples involve at least 4 players. where are all these authors playing? i play on party and you'll be lucky to get 5-6 players on a flop at 1/2$, never mind 20/40$...starting with 3/6$ it's all one huge rock garden. if that many see the flop for 20 or 40$ a trained chimp could beat the game. forget about expert post flop play on a table where 5-6 see the flop on average, you don't need it to show a profit. i play 5/10$ and i'm happy if there are 3-4 players on a flop 1 in every 3 hands, never mind 6. so for you who have played both games are casino fish as retarded as the books would have you believe? if the games were that loose we'd all be making millions playing 4 tables a couple of hours a day [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[Killer Man's Son]

Live play is much looser than online play which is the main reason I prefer it.

[Webster]

yes they are that loose. However - you play 34 hands an hour as opposed to 65+.

Plus - you can't play in your underware . . .if you wanted to.

When we had Poker in Wisconsin before the Republicans took it away the 10/20 tables would have 70% flops easy.

[James282]

From a pure profit standpoint, playing live is a joke. Hope this helps.
-James

[Kaeser]

People don't drive to a casino to fold. Also It's much harder to get a large amount of cash into an online site. The drunk business man at your local 20-40 game can drop a grand and walk straight to an ATM.

Live games are generally more fun, it's a social experience. On-line even bad players can find distractions while they wait for a decent starting hand.

Also the previous poster is correct on-line is much better if your thinking of playing poker for income.

[obsidian]

Until you get to the very high limits this is so true. I probably make $100-$150/hr 4-tabling 5/10 and 10/20. In order to achieve that live I'd probably have to play 40/80 or 80/160 which would require a MUCH larger bankroll. Since you are playing much slower your downswings would also last longer. Not to mention the 40/80 and 80/160 games are probably harder than the 5/10 and 10/20 online, although I might be wrong.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
Until you get to the very high limits this is so true. I probably make $100-$150/hr 4-tabling 5/10 and 10/20. In order to achieve that live I'd probably have to play 40/80 or 80/160 which would require a MUCH larger bankroll. Since you are playing much slower your downswings would also last longer. Not to mention the 40/80 and 80/160 games are probably harder than the 5/10 and 10/20 online, although I might be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my experience, 80 160 games are almost always good where I play. This is because they don't spread unless bad players are around. 40 80 is comparable to 10 20 I would say.
-James

[xwillience]

I dont necessarily agree that online is better than BM. as far as income sure, u will make more money if u can 8 table even with a lower winrate, but you wont ever get to the point where u can beat Doyle (longterm) in his 4k/8k game if you only play online. I think everyone needs to play both to be a well rounded player. Play online when you dont have a good live game to play in. Also, people have been playing pro poker for decades and internet hasnt been around that long so obviously you can make a living at BM games too.