Just go to the Taj and play for a weak, if you still love poker after they run you through the badgering, goading, neddleing, cussing, threats, insults, etc. then you can play anywhere.

Sigh..

You clearly don't get it.

The people winning at .73, .55, .04 (and I'm assuming this is HS Limit 10/20+) will crush HS limit at 5bb+/100.

They obviously are playing in tougher games and 12-24 tabling hurts their win rate.

If UIGEA didn't exist, winrates of 2-4bb/100 would still easily be accessable.

Live poker is a joke compared to online.


Also your example is pretty poor.

Let's be a little more realistic with stack sizes

You get $100 in as a 55/45 favorite.

55% of the time you win $200 (-$7 for rake/bbj/dealer) = $193 x .55 = 106.15 in the black

45 % of the time you lose $100 = $45 in the red

= $51.15 in the black. (or done 100 times +$5k)


Thus your example is moot (also who gets it in for $25 all in.. lol).

why are food costs added in? do you not pay food costs if you play internet poker? Working at MCDs can get you 50% off on food

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27/brick-mortar/

get help from the "pros" more before posting op. ur points are pretty lol worthy and you are promoting yourself to be clueless. gg

And which bit of that did you not understand?

lol @ $25 all in as your example

why would anyone go to your seminars when you make posts like these

Wait, this is the guy what his name says? Unbelievable considering his OP is so poorly written and makes no sense.

Why would a professional player play lower than 5/5 live? Why would they ever be all in for pots <1000$? I see the point but this is completely overexeggerated.

Just what kind of nose bleeds are we playing at the Rio??? Not everyone is rich player as you shoemaker.

I made my roll grinding 1/3nl $500 max buyin live for 2 years in an underground game with rake higher than anywhere in Vegas and I still did fine, how juicy a game is can easily offset a harsh rake. Also most Vegas cash grinders would only play at a Harrah's poker room for a special circumstance such as WSOP as they charge $1 base rake higher than anywhere else and some rooms also don't have a BBJ.

This is such a horrible example and encapsulates your misunderstanding of the subject perfectly.

(1) The tougher the competition, the smaller your edge. The 30/60 etc. games in Vegas are amazingly softer than the 30/60 on Stars. I mean, LOL @ thinking a guy beating 30/60 online at .5BB/100 is going to get crushed at 30/60 in Vegas.

(2) The rake is higher online in mid-stakes limit games (the example you used is from mid-stakes limit games). If everyone folds to me on the button, I raise and only the BB calls, $3 goes down the hole at 30/60. Make the necessary computations and compare that with the average time charge for live 30/60 and get back to us (don't forget to toke!).

Sorry, but mid-stakes+ online players will destroy their live counterparts - easily. Small stakes live players certainly pay a higher rake than online, but LOL @ using the example in stox's book to make that point.

Man, this OP sure takes a long time to make poor arguments. It's a bad combination.

Re live play, if you aren't destroying the games relative to online, something is very very wrong. Even thinking in terms of BB/100 is silly.

At B&M you sit down, pick your targets, and exploit them, mostly with very basic strategies. Rinse. Repeat. Profit.

Who cares about all that other stuff.

As for low-buyin tournaments, the rake IS often ridiculous, but you shouldn't really be playing them in any case because it's a huge waste of time compared to ring games.

I take it from these replies that the seminar will not be well attended...

the argument he should be making is not if online players can beat live games, its if online players can beat them for enough money to live on.

even if your winrate live is 3x your bb/100 online the game is 1/3 as fast or worse so that gives you about the same winrate per hour. then if you 20 table you have to play 20 times as high live as online just to make the same ammount of money and if the games are only 10x as soft then you are playing a game twice as hard as your game online (so you prolly wont have 3x winrate) and will need a much larger bankroll.

Hey Al,

I know that most of the people here are NL hold'em players, but I'd say that for LHE this is patently not true. The gold standard for solid pro online at stakes that you could play professionally, for the sake of argument 3/6+, is about 1BB/100. There are a few who win more than this, but you're a solid pro in the mid-stakes at 1BB/100. At the same time playing mid-stakes live LHE at 20/40 and higher, you'd do well to make 1BB/HR. Given that you're playing 30-40 hands an hour, you're looking in the neighborhood of 3BB+/HR.

These reported win rates include rake/tips, and the impact of going from $3/hand rake to $5+$1+$1 tip clearly shows that the increased per hand cost doesn't matter. For one thing, moving from 5/10 online to 40/80 live to keep the same earn makes the rake smaller in terms of BB/100. You went up 8x in stakes while only going up a little more than 2x in rake. I assume in NL (playing for stacks) that the impact of rake is lower. If you play 100NL or 200NL with a $3 rake online, and you move to 5/10 blind NL live, isn't the rake effectively lower?

Given that the rake is lower in BB and the reported edge for good winning players is higher, I believe that the opposite of what you point out is true.

This all depends on the online player being able to adjust to live games to have a strong win rate. As someone who has played both, I assume the adjustment will be pretty easy. However, some people who have learned to play by rote may have a longer adjustment time than a thinking player.

i cant imagine sitting thru a round of fake thinking by 1/2 donks at my local casino who are all 20 something punks who wears sunglasses at the table. makes a lot of noise in every pot, and they all yell together like "WHOA!" allin river pot, regardless of the fact that they're yelling for a 10bb pot. 30hands/hr of that, 12hrs a day (otherwise how you gonna get through variance if you dont play a lot), of this will make me callin a cab home or call in sick for the day. but if you do play live make sure the limit is big enough so that theres left overs for nugs, thats if you dont spend it all first on ritalin.

Your example is even worse because you suck at basic math/logic. You do not "win" $193...you win $93. Redo your math...

The 55/45 discussion is absurd. If you are passing up 55/45 edges because of rake either the rake is uncapped or you are playing too small to be worrying about making a living anyways.

The rake factor is huge but the fact is that live games at any level are so laughably easy for the guys who played well enough to beat midstakes or even lowstakes online games that it won't be enough to keep them from making a living. For most of them, they will be playing higher stakes live and as DougL wrote the rake effect will be lowered. The nature of the games means many will have to settle for a lower hourly, of course.

Also, LOL at a guy breaking even in midstakes online limit hold 'em games having a difficult time crushing live limit poker games. While I don't understand why Stoxtrader would use this player in his book, I would happily stake this guy to play any regularly spread live limit game.

But you're right, Al, that guys who make 1k a month playing 10nl and living in their parents' basements are going to have a difficult time adjusting to live play. Good work.

what about guys who make 2k a month playing 20nl and living on their own?

They have a job.

First i was kind of confused after reading op, because, to be honest, that post is ridiculous. Basicly you're saying "to be good at any form of poker you need to make adjustments." Really, sir, no kidding?
Then i saw the link and suddenly the purpose of the post became clear...or maybe not so clear. A losing player will still lose even if he reads body language verry well and can snapcount villain's stack. A winning player is winning not because all of his fancy softwares. Belive or not, even if it's played on the internet it's still poker, and winning requires a good ammount of skill, for example logic, so a good player will eventually figure out the necessary adjustments by himself. So i'm not really sure what you're trying to acomplish here, but regardless, in this form it came off very wrong, imo.

Don't hate. Motivate.