Settling a debate, online vs. live skills

[danderso8]

[ QUOTE ]
Conversely, I am a skilled online player who play s worse live. After playing with myself, i sense a part of that is because of the relatively slow play compared to online play where I am usually multi-tabling, and I get bored and start playing less quality starting hands and taking risks I might not take online.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP to correspond to my experience. Wait, part of that doesn't sound so good. Whatever. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I have a LOT more online experience (winning at 30/60) than i do live, and the above is/has been definitely somewhat true for me. I'm a small winner in live 6/12 to 10/20 games.

I think the other part of my problem live is that i give off tells left and right, and am not used to looking for them myself.

For example, a few weeks ago, I turned a nut flush in a 6/12kill game from EP, reached for chips, and then realized i should C/R. Too late, the others had already seen this and checked it around.

But i am paying attention to problems like that and am getting quite a bit better each time live.

--dan

[damaniac]

Ok thanks, interesting stuff, but I guess maybe I'd like more on the why.

One thing is going to be sample size, especially live. Unless we're looking at years of play or months of full-time play, the number of live hands just aren't going to mean that much, while you can get at least a semi-reasonable amount of online hands in a much shorter amount of time, so it's quite possible for someone to be a very marginal winner or break-even player online and then run good over say 10k hands live, which might translate into 300 hours, or 50 trips to the casino. For a guy who is semi-serious and plays maybe once a week, that's an entire year, yet the sample isn't that large.

But I guess what I was really going for was, if you have some very fundamental weaknesses or misunderstandings that cause you to lose when you play online, is there any reason to suppose that you would be able to make up or otherwise get around them live? If so, how? I guess there are enough people who do well live and not online, and maybe even a few where it isn't a sample size issue, but I just can't see the reason for a solid, fundamental shift in their winrate.

[ZenMusician]

1.) People playing live might get 30-35 hands per hour.
Someone who has the patience to play properly at this
slower pace, concentrate despite noise and distractions
and perform reads, remember plays and calculate odds
will find poker in their own home much easier.

2.) People used to no distractions, PokerTracker etc., multitabling,
and other comforts of home may find it very difficult to
handle the pace, noise and pressure of live play. The area of
telegraphing plays and hand strength has been discussed, but
to a true live novice may be a great weakness if they are not self-
aware.

3.) The sheer number of hands and the speed of online play
may confuse and cause the B&M player to make more
mistakes. Shortcomings in a session are quite magnified
when you may play 2-3 times the hands per hour per
table.

4.) The skill level for an online 5-10 table is more akin to a
20-40 / 30-60 table live. People go to a casino to gamble
money...to non-poker addicts, poker is just another
gambling game. People deposit money in an online site to
specifically play poker, and are better suited to do so as a whole.
A small stakes B&M player may find himself outclassed at the
tangent level online.

Summary: Both niches have their own weaknesses and advantages.
It will take either player time to adjust to the new venue; I propose
that an online player going live will have the greatest disadvantage.

Hope this helps

-ZEN