One time chip reese did an interview and was asked about bad runs. He said he coulnet imagine running bad for more then 2-3 weeks. Now he played the toughest games live on the planet.
How would it then be possible to run bad for 100k hands in online poker? What u guys think.
I hope the moderator don't get mad at me. I think they don't like questions about how valid one site or another may be for some reason. I assume if I was a well known tv guy it would be ok to ask these questions? Hopeful no problem comes from this. I am just struggle and looking for answers.
Thank you.

The lower your winrate, the higher the probability of experiencing a loss after 100k hands.

WCG|Rider said he couldn't imagine losing after 10-20k hands HU given his winrate against most players.

Elbow do u explain why so many winning regs knljne say it's common to lose over 50k hands or more? Most sng players say its common to go on a 100 buy in downswing at some point? I hardly believe that could happen live as a winner

If a live player's winrate were small, it could happen. Thing is, as has been explained about 20 times to you already, a good live player's winrate is humungous. If the player pools were reversed, live players would be the ones talking about huge downswings. Or if the online sharks decided to slum it at micro stakes from now on, you'd never hear them talk about a large downswing.

When I fool around 2-tabling Bovada zone .02/.05, I don't think I can imagine having a losing 8-hour session (not that I ever play it that long). Playing live $1/2, I couldn't imagine having a losing month or a 4k downswing. Those are games I freakin demolish, but obviously I'm not as safe from downswings in games where my opponents actually know a few things about poker or have read a few pages of a poker book.

I agree but u think chip reese playing against the best players in the world at the highest stakes had a humungous win rate? Seems unlikely right? But there 5bb per 100 is just hundreds of thousands, same win rate tho righ?

I don't know what his winrate was. He was playing at a time when people didn't know what EV was or use pot odds, so maybe his winrate was large. I'm sure his tables had other pros but maybe they also had whales.

But any decent player alive today who has played online and live will tell you that the competition online is much stronger, so the experience of one man from decades ago isn't very relevant. You seem to think the average live villain is equally tough as online villains, but that only means you're bad at poker if you can't tell the difference between a good player and a terrible one.

"Against the best players in the world." That's where your statement has a leak.
If he was playing against the toughest competition out there exclusively, he was an idiot... I don't think he was. Add one whale on a table of sharks, and they'll all be fine in the long run. And there's always that weak spot, or the sharks won't play. Do you actually believe these high stakes players, when they say in poker shows, that they want to play against the toughest competition? Yeah, maybe for fun, for the cameras, for marketing purposes... but for monitary reasons? Hell no!
I don't even understand, what you're trying to say there. Use a dictionary ffs!

Was he involved in any cheating scandals?

Why do all u guys assume the older knew nothing about this stuff? How did they win for so long without knowing this stuff? The good players knew about the same stuff wek is about now. The differnce is now the bad players know about it more then they did back then.

Disagree the old pros know as much about the game as we do today. That doesn't mean I think they would be losers playing in today's games or that they couldn't win online if they wanted to make a living there.

You misread my post. It's not that Chip Reese didn't know basic theory stuff, but that his opponents didn't (though I'm only speculating). Therefore, his edge was larger than a modern pro's edge, and hence his downswings smaller.

Today, maybe a live 5/10nl winner has the same downswings (per table) as an online 1/2nl winner, and so on. I can't speak from experience, but maybe a live nosebleed player has downswings of many buy-ins like the nosebleed online players.

Another factor is that online, people multitable. The game doesn't even have to be harder for the downswings to be larger, because your edge when multitabling isn't as large as when single-tabling unless you're equally good when your attention is divided 12 ways (doubtful). People do that anyway because it increases their hourly profit.

I agree with all this and as my point is non of this makes the online player better. It's just means they are able to win money with rakbakc. If sites took away rakeback and cash for points the games would dry up Due to most players bent unable to win. Live casinos have even gone to a rackback system in atlantic city.

All my whole point ever was there is no way online can be bettet than live players in a pure win for win comparison. Sure some dude ma be able to make 50k rake backing, but in my eyes this guy is not a winning player.

I don't know how you agree with everything I said, and then go on to say what you said.

Online, a winning player, say Bob, is playing against tougher players (this is an indisputable fact). He has a smaller edge per table than when he plays live (both because the tables are harder and because his attention is divided). Let's say his winrate online is 4bb/100 and his winrate live is 20bb/100, and let's say he 10-tables. Well then, he makes twice as much online as live. It's called multiplication. That's why he doesn't pick on the easier live tables (not because live is equally hard). He doesn't care about bb/100, he cares about $$/hour. Edit -- not only that, he sees far more hands per table online, so actually with 4bb/100, he'd be making maybe 4x the profit he does live, not 2x.

Yes Bob also has smaller rake, but that doesn't come close to explaining how much larger Bob's hourly profit is online.

If I still haven't gotten through to you, then I might be done feeding you.

Ok so here is my question the ? Who is making this extra money online that they don't make live? Every single wining player in my opinion will make more money live. 95% of all small limit players are making nothing online except rakeback. They are not winners. In theory u are correct in practice almost no one is doing it. Maybe less then 5%. I am tellin u all sites do things to keep these games even. This is the reason for it. I see guys calling with j3 shoving top pair with 2 kickers, and stuff no winner would do online. U can never convince me that the average online players is any good. I destroy small limit players heads up all day until they bink quads or some ******ed 1 out hand every night which brings my win rate down to notmal. Every night with the 1 out runner runner bullchit online. I shake my head and say these guy suck a poker but the miracle 1 out that occurs alway during an all in saves them every night. Just no way