|
|
#1
10-20-2005, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Eureka!!!
I just had an amazing insight! For the longest time I wondered about the legitimacy of online poker, having been unable to win much online. Actually, all in all, I didnt do too bad. I had a huge tourney hit on Paradise, winning $1800 from a $7 investment. But still, my overall results on online poker were meager profits, if it all.
I have since made some posts on here questioning whether internet poker was rigged and gotten flamed. I have since learned some facts and had some insights which have moved me away from these thoughts. What I didnt realize was that guys who play live are playing much lower stakes online. For example, a guy who plays $10/$20 online can make roughly the same hourly rate playing two $3/$6 games simultaneously online. This is due to the increased amount of hands/hr per table and the ability to play at two tables at the same time. Consequently it's not surprising to find $10/$20 players at limits down to $2/$4 and $20/$40 players at the $5/$10 limits. I was so dumb I never made this observation and was constantly playing up to $5/10, thinking that lower limits were donk fests and wastes of time. Being mostly a live player (and winning player), it never dawned on me that $2/$4 games online would be populated by guys who were winning at $10/$20 live. Consequently, a $2/$4 game online is going to be a lot tougher than either a $3/$6 or $5/$10 game live. I'm so retarded I never thought about that until now. Another reason online games are tougher is because the typical donk, drunk, or bad player who gambles casually and slowly loses money at the B&M casino is not going to play online. This type of player might not even understand how to get hooked up. I know many players at the casino who feel overwhelmed by computers and lack the resources or intellect to get started playing online. Even if a bad player does manage to start playing online, he will lose inordinately quicker, and his long term results will become apparent much more readily than if he plays live at the casino. In one session at the casino, he may play about 100-200 hands, whereas he will play this in one hour or less online. A couple hour session online will amount to a week of live play. He will not have the encouragement of his short term results, only the dissatisfaction of his long term results, which will be apparent more quickly online. I'm not saying donks dont play online, but the player base is going to be limited to players who are computer literate and capable. These people tend to be more educated, and have access to educational materials (i.e. this site) to improve their game, whereas the donk at the B&M casino doesnt. Also, B&M casinos tend to draw a player base which is geographically generated (i.e. players who live close by) whereas internet poker rooms draw players from around the world, the average quality of which is going to be higher than the guys who "live close to" the B&M cardroom. The online players may not have access to B&M casinos and play online as their only outlet. Hence, the average pool of players online is going to be that much tougher than live players who flock to B&M casinos because of living in reasonable proximity or who frequent strictly for entertainment value. In conclusion, the quality of online play is much tougher than B&M, due to the fact that winning players at higher limits are playing lower limits online and also because the technical aspect of computers deter many of the live ones from the live casino. I'm so retarded. How could I not see this before? duh -J 
|
|
#5
10-20-2005, 04:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eureka!!!
[ QUOTE ]
Also, B&M casinos tend to draw a player base which is geographically generated (i.e. players who live close by) whereas internet poker rooms draw players from around the world, the average quality of which is going to be higher than the guys who "live close to" the B&M cardroom. The online players may not have access to B&M casinos and play online as their only outlet. Hence, the average pool of players online is going to be that much tougher than live players who flock to B&M casinos because of living in reasonable proximity or who frequent strictly for entertainment value. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with everything you said except this, a sample of people who live "close" to a B&M casino should have an average poker skill equal to that of society as a whole. Even if these samples did not equal out, you can't say that the average poker player in the world is greater than an average poker player of people who live close to casinos. --LoO
|
|
#6
10-20-2005, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eureka!!!
Well, what I meant was, that the player base that frequents the B&M casino is more strongly based on geographic proximity, whereas the player base on the internet is more strongly based upon skill and edge in poker. There is no other reason for a random joe to sign up for an account and play online poker other than poker itself, whereas there are many reasons an average joe may go down to the casino and stumble into the poker room and play. For example, boredom and lack of a job, friends or hobby may result in him frequenting a casino where he finds entertainment and substitution for social gathering. For example, unable to beat a house game, he may be seduced by some of the attractive elements of the poker game, sit down, make a nice win and get hooked for a long time.
There may be some very good players who do not live in proximity to a B&M casino who previously were only able to play on selective occasions (i.e. vacations) who now are able to play 24/7 on the internet. These are just some examples. -J
|
|
#7
10-20-2005, 05:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eureka!!!
Good post, always interesting when someone takes the time to express their thoughts in more than two words.
That said, I disagree on a couple of points. First of all, today, being computer literate doesn't mean that you are any more clever or good at poker than someone else. Second, the shortcomings of the average live player you describe are probably correct (I haven't played much live), but you fail to compare them to the shortcomings of the average online player. For instance, while the bad live player might just be hooked on the social aspects, the drinking, the excitement, of the game, the bad online player may be the kind of person who enjoys the anonymity of the internet. He might not want to play in a casino, for fear of being rideculed for his bad play, even though in his heart of hearts he know he is an excellent player. Online, however, he is prepared to show all of those cocky types who is the best. And so we earn some money...
|
|
#8
10-20-2005, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Eureka!!!
I generally agree with Justin on the point you disagree with.
not having computer literacy doesn't HAVE to mean you suck at poker....but I've played enough B&M poker with players who are just clueless about poker AND about computer/the internet....and I do think there is a rough correlation. There are weak-tight senior-citizen nit type players who can be run over who have no idea how to even turn on a computer. but it is obviously correct to say that there are plenty of fish at BOTH...and that the reasons behind them being fish or bad at poker varies by individual. Whatever the reasons behind it...the fact remains that live 3/6 and 4/8 in the B&M pretty much plays similarly to party .5/1 and 1/2. Live 10/20 might be comparable to online 3/6. Very beatable....but to step into a full-ring online 5/10 game and think it will be as fishy as a drunken low-limit live 4/8 or 5/10 game is typically incorrect. Yes...there are many half-decent players out there who multi-table at fairly low-limits online and can grind out a little cash doing this. When I started playing online 'professionally' (or 'full-time for income') I would just multi-table 2/4 and 3/6. And there are many players who do this...or can do this. As Sklansky said in the foreward to SSHE...it is 'no big deal' to be able to make $50k/yr online playing 3/6. Here's the break-down: 4 tables of 3/6 at 1BB/hr each (approx 1.5BB/100). This is about $25/hr (more than that with bonuses and rake-back actually). $25/hr X 40 hours in a week = $1k/week Obviously there's no way you can make $1k/wk playing 3/6 live because you simply aren't getting enough hands. Glad to see that the OP is 'seeing the light' as it were. Indeed there truly ARE success stories on 2+2 in such matters.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
