i like your attempt at sarcasm, real cute.

and how your little quips don't actually address any subject matter,
and appear to be nothing other than posturing.

did i strike a nerve, bud??

I imagine that it's very important to you that you be taken seriously, that that has some value to you? I'm not sure if you've gathered, I could care less if you or anyone takes me seriously.
try listening to what i'm saying. the substance of it.

I've already conceded that online players are infinitely better in every way;
what more do you want out of me??

do you want me to tell you when you're getting leveled, too?

Why would you bother with silly things like "table appearance" or clothing or whatever to "get action" live. I do play live a few times a year when there is good 10/20 action at some euro tournaments. I start with no reads assuming everyone is a complete drooler unless I have previous history and never try to bluff anyone. Then, if I notice some players are capable of folding hands or even fold to my valuebets more than I'd like, I start doing these things called bluffs until they stop folding. Yeah I know it sounds silly, but I prefer increasing my bluffing frequency and preflop aggression to worrying about them being scared about my sunglasses or young scary potential internet L337 pro looks and trying to dress up like a live donk.

hahahahah first time i actually lol'd at a post in a while, perfect phrasing and everything A+

she probably balances it by doing it with rags too, so lol at you!

It's not sarcasm at all. You claimed that the majority of skill the best players in poker have is the ability to basically trick opponents into giving them action when they're in reality giant nits with no bluff range. That is one of many reasons people don't take live players seriously, because a lot of them think like you do. Not all live players think like that and some are decent. And no I could care less whether anyone here takes me seriously or not unless it means we can get a HU match (we can do it live if you wanna play high enough).

Also I never said online players are amazing. A lot of online players suck just as bad as live players. The difference is maybe 1% of live players are decent while there's a forum full of online players here who would crush pretty much every live player in a live or online poker game.

YEAH BUT DO YOU HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO PULL THE TRIGGER???

ya gotta have heart, commitment, and be qualified. Ask Tony G.

Honestly, I have no idea why anyone disagrees with stampler at all. He's right, poker is all about money and there probably are a lot things that most of us do poorly at an actual live poker table that cost us money. There is indeed more to poker than bet sizing and timing. Maybe online there isn't but at an actual table there sure as hell are. And in the end, there's only one scorecard, and that is maney. Good post stampler. Plus your location and pic are awesome.

That being said...

so i did touch a nerve?!
confirmed...

this is 100% your ego talking here.
I'm actually in shock that this means so much to you!
you must be a very insecure little puppy!
maybe not in poker, but in life.

I'll say it a 3rd time: you online players are far and away the best.

happy now?

this was'nt sarcasm??

I thought that the best are the best because they are good at all the skills across the board, and they probably worked the hardest??

and whats up w/ all the black and white thinking ITT?
the gross generalizations?

live/online,
good/bad,

is everything a dichotomy to you guys/gals??
there are no grey areas?
there are no players that play both online and live?
i'll admit few do both at a high level, but in theory,
if you've ever played ONE hand of live poker, geuss what,
you're a live player!
so go hate on yourself!

or better yet, do a little soul-searching.
why do I even play poker, really?
what do i get out of it, really?
what needs am I really fulfilling/ trying to have fulfilled?

wasn't the argument is that the average online player is better than the average live player?
This being that both "average" players are actually slight losers overall?

Plus for the moderate winning players, its easier to determine if an online player is winning because of skill vs variance because of the hand sample than a live player.


My first year of playing poker, I played live, and was an overall winner with a good hourly, but looking back at it I really, really sucked at poker and was probably riding a sick heater.

.

live recreational players are there to throw away $, not to 'play poker';
I know it's disappointing if you are out to prove you're 'the best' when it's just a turkey shoot.

they will give you action if you are joking around, and getting laughs, are 'one of the guys';
I've heard "thanks, see you guys tomorrow" from an retired CEO who just dropped $2000.
Is he saying this if everyone at the table is a silent hoodie wearing internet pro??
what i'm saying is that live poker is a lot like sales. you have to sell your hand/ your image; what i'm saying is that you have to make ppl want to gamble w/ you in live poker, you have to be proactive w/ your image.
It's another skill, among many. I never said thats all it takes. obv, you have to have a fundementally sound game, and know what you're doing first and foremost.

I'm not saying that this is how you beat live poker;
just that it's an aspect of having a winning live game that gets completely overlooked or marginalized by the online community, as your post demonstrates.

better at what? what game? better at life??
"better" is really pretty meaningless.
it's just a weak value statement for insecure ppl to cling to, IMO.
and who even cares?
and if you do care, seriously, WHY??
is it really that important to you at the end of the day that you know that you're the best?
the best is relative, anyways.
if you're not PI, then claiming 'better', or 'best' is just hubris plain and simple.
you are prob just fooling yourselves.


I'm paying my bills, and enjoying my life away from poker.
I could care less if i'm better than X,Y, or Z or not, if i'm not playing against them.

discussing the differences between live and online could be something that everyone could learn from,
instead the discussion here tends to gravitate towards this rather facile "good/bad" "I'm better than you" argument that seems to be unproductive, outside of propping up some egos.

It's such a stoopid topic to argue. In live games at the stakes I assume Stampler plays, namely 1/2-2/5, setting up your image to get the nuts payed off is probably the most profitable skill, simply because so many bad players will "be tricked." In higher stakes and most online games, this is not the case so it doesn't apply.

actually, i play for nickles and dimes out behind the playground during recess.

lol at live players trying to defend their honor in this thread. you guys are fighting an unwinnable battle on your opponents turf. might be best just to bow out gracefully.

cool story bro

Fair point, although most good online players are not the ones that go and wear a hoodie/sunglasses and are silent at the table, I've always associated that look with live pros although there are certainly online guys who do it too. I've seen people drop a LOT more than 2k in a game and leave happy because it was a friendly table and I've seen a fish who was ready to drop a lot more than 2k but then left after a few orbits because of a few people just being dicks and making the game not fun.

you guys are putting words in my mouth.
Pls point out where I defended anything.

If you were trying to understand what I posted instead of just knee jerk reacting, you would have noticed thst I agree that online players are on average much much better. Never argued this ever.
It's no contest.
The average amount of time the typical live player has spent learning the game away from the table is prob 5 minutes.
The average NL50 player online has a subscription to cardrunners/DC.

My question is;
if you guys are so great at game selection,
then why do u insist on playing a game where your edge is quantified in terms of FPPs??

I didn't post here to defend anything, or to argue, or fight ant battles.
I'm just trying to contribute something to those who are able to listen
that's all.

I'm happy for you guys, you're so great.

At my funeral, I hope they say
"he loved fishing, surfing, cycling, and playing golf"
it doesn't make a difference to me if they say how I paid for it all.

I don't think this thread is even about live vs online.
It's about "what is my identity?"

I geuss if you can convince yourself that playing online says something about you, that you belong to this cool club, then go ahead.

I'm like WC Fields,
I wouldn't belong to an orginization that would have me as a member.

Once upon a time, poker plyrs were individualists.
Then the Internet came along,
and the herd mentality emerged
right alongside 20 tabling and standardized rote lines.
Real progress.

this is officially the dumbest post i've ever started to read and then stopped.


you realize this thread is a big joke, right? and that I don't identify myself as an individual solely by the fact that I play poker online (and by extension am a better player than most live players), right?

lighten up buddy boy. we're all decent dudes, we're just busting your balls because most likely you and your boys suck at poker