Actually, I am working with someone who I believe to be a much better player than myself. This I know because his results are better online and live than mine. I have analyzed and steadily improved my game every day that I have been doing this. My live results show it with more than 200 final tables, my online results do not lately. I went from 80+ ROI into the negative quickly. I dont believe this is because I have a lot of huge holes in my game.

As I said before, this is most likely due to a bad run. I dont ever rule out foul play though, I think that I would be naive to ignore the possibilities. Even live and in home games, you need to keep your eyes open. I can agree that there is a point where paranoia becomes a huge drain on your life and your goals.

Lately, I have just been logging into this thread for fun, I kind of have an addiction to it because I like to laugh. Some of you guys are pretty funny. Sometimes I will advocate for the rigtard side because I have natural tendency to root for the underdog. I am a counselor, so it is just in my nature. I get the feeling that some of the people responding here return for the same reason.

200 final tables live? What does that even mean

Your online results are due to sample size. +80% ROI was not an indication of anything either even if it led you to believe something about your expected results.


One should always be alert, but you will do yourself better worrying about opponents and possible collusion compared to any conspiracy by a huge company to make you lose a few bucks for no gain on their part. I mean if they are pulling that off what are you even going to do about it?

If you started worrying about whether the card manufactures put addicting drugs on their cards that will be absorbed through the skin because the owners are also maybe drug runners and want to build business - yeah you are in "umm ok" territory. Worry about if a couple of the players are colluding against you if you need to have your paranoia work for you.

Same online - worry about actual issues, not superbots.



A lot of the "underdogs" you root for say a lot of directly mean things toward other posters or to the industry/sites in general without backing their claims.

You generally root for underdogs that accuse everyone else of being criminals out to rob them?

It's good you are trying to improve your game instead of just outright dismissing your losses as a fault of some sort of rigged deal (as some seem to in this thread). In regards to the difference between your live results and online this could be caused by a number of factors:

1) Playing live you can read your opponents physical actions/tells etc. You also obviously can read their play. Online all you can read is how they play.

2) Live players are in general worse than online players. (This is the biggest reason your stats may be off)

3) It is much easier to make the borderline call online as the button is right there. It's easier to click (and more tempting) than physically seeing your chips and having to count them out and push them over the line.

Those are just a few reasons your results could differ.

clarified for you

lol, I just came back to the thread to see if this was still editable. This is correct, at the same stakes.

I do agree with you on 90% of this. I am not sure that I agree with you on the live players are worse than online players at the same stakes. I think we are comparing apples and oranges. See your item #1 one to support this statement. The fact that online is different could also be part of where I may be falling short. I am not going to ignore this thoughful advice because it very well could be where I need some more work.

This is unquestionably true on an average basis in the current state of poker. I play NL200 live and do pretty well there. I struggle at NL25 online. If a player can beat NL200 online, then the other reason they would be playing NL200 live would be for bankroll reasons. Now I don't play tournaments live or online, so can't comment there.

1. My sample size online was not small
2. Agreed
3. Agreed
4. Sure, I'll try...lol
5. That is a good point
6. I think that you are going a little to far to the right on this one. I will not back anyone who is making a complete bald face claim in situations like these. There needs to be proof, not just outlandish claims.

[QUOTE=Monteroy;13671450]200 final tables live? What does that even mean

LOL!

It means that I stopped counting at 200 and have not kept track of my ROI since. I am in the plus side, but you are right, it only means that I have had some positive results that have not been boiled down to the bottom line.

Well, but again, is this because you are not as good of a player online as you are live? I think this might be the case. I think we are trying to compare two different things that need different types of skillsets. Sure, some of them overlap, but not many of them do...

Perhaps a grain of truth, but consider this. Most online players who become competent at 50NL or 100NL and then move to live, find it easy to beat 500NL live, and 200NL live is ridiculously easy. On the other hand, players who are good at 500NL live, struggle with 50NL online.

Sounds like a one way street.

I am curious, was there some sort of study on this? Where are you guys getting your info? Your circle of friends may not be truly representative of the rest of the population.

There is a degree of difficulty in obtaining data on live poker games, but I haven't heard anyone disagree with the general concept.

FWIW, in given a live card room, the smallest stakes are even easier ('cause everyone who would/should play lower will play those stakes) and the highest stakes are harder ('cause who would/should play higher will play those stakes). This effect is pretty marginal if at all existent online.

Harrington talks about it in HOH and he uses something like the 10:1 ratio for comparable stakes. As Josem mentioned, the main reason seems to be that live the lowest stakes are usually $1 or $2 blinds, and so the beginners and tourists play that. Online, the lowest stakes are often only .01, so beginners can play that or maybe they play .05/10 and by the time you get to $1 blinds online, the average player at that table is experienced. Also consider that online more hands are played, and for a multitable grinder, he can play 400 hands an hour and make the same amount of money per hour at $1 blinds that he could make at $10 or $20 blinds at a single live table. But less risk at the lower stakes, and less variance by multitabling.

Aside from the theory, many people have pointed it out from experience.

That is an interesting point.

One strange thing I found in my live cash game was that I could not beat the 1-2 and 1-3 NL game, but I have beaten the $2-$5 and $5-10 NL game very consistently. I have rationalized this as being able to read the players easier because at the lower levels, you are getting a very wide range of players. This makes it more difficult to know where you are in the hands. I may also be playing too loose because the low buy in amount. Not sure though...

This makes sense to me. I keep hearing good things about the H O H book. I better go pick it up.

Note that he has two series. The HOH series is for tournaments, it's two volumes and a workbook. He also has Harrington on Cash Games, two volumes.

There is more than one of them but they are all good. He has a few on tournaments as well as a couple on cash games. Everyone I talk to about them agrees they are solid books. I believe they are published by 2+2! So you can get them here: http://www.twoplustwostore.com/twopl...Category&ID=11

How do pokerstars account for the ridiculoulsy unrealistically high amount of action hands. Every single fkn hand I see at the tables is a straight or flush. Guaranteed no questions asked, just pure fact!! In real life, games can go hours without a single top fkn pair never mind a flush! And then they say their system is checked regularly by which ever organisation they have also in the conspiracy, on a site that we can go check out the analysis's etc I mean what effing proof is that????

Absolutely, positively false, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Please stop lying.

Also, we have a profanity filter for a reason; there's no need to circumvent it. If you want to say ****ing, just say ****ing.

I spy a new cadet, all green and fresh and looking for a fight.

Two responses:

1) If you don't believe PS, conduct your own research. I'd be happy to help you.

2) The idea that PS somehow shuffle up and deal "action" boards is absolutely impossible if you understand how the shuffle works. As has been proven previously, it is totally random. However, *even if* it were not random, it would still be impossible to fix such flops because the server can't know which players will still be in the hand on the flop, turn or river.

Once the cards are shuffled then, just like live casinos, the deck is set and then dealt. Since computer can have no way of knowing what players will do (obviously impossible to predict the fufture), the server has no way of conjuring up special boards for their play.

fyp, for rhyming qualities.

Only 37% vote 'yes' ???

Jesus Christ, 2+2-members are no fun.

Proof?