jesus ****ing christ, you cannot define things by including the same thing on both sides of the definition

You: "the best live players in the world will beat the best online players in the world, when they are playing live poker"

god you are dumb

I am going to create a new thread where I will argue that the best PLO players in the world will beat the best NLHE players in the world, when they are playing PLO

Just listen to Ike.
Prolly only poster ITT who would be in the Top 50 players in the world.

LT22, You sound a little defensive & your questions aren't making any sense, I've tried to lay out in a logical way as well as respond to most people my ideas, I can't lay out everything in the exact way that you want to read it, please use some common sense when reading what I write, thanks

I am not defensive, I am amazed at your incompetence

LT22, I'm sorry, not sure what you mean. Others understand pretty well

"This is certainly one of the more well constructed levels I've read in recent times.....and with good continuity from OP...... Hats off to you sir."

10 best players in the world until black friday most of them were online players if your talking about nlhe and absolutely plo.

Shavedcoidpurse, Your 100% mistaken. The reason those players are cheered in that manner is because they play super high stakes nosebleed. Just from the sheer number of games players online, there are going to be a small percentage of good online players that run extremely well, they have access to all games & pyramid up in stakes. The made tons of money, Live players haven't had access to the same games live & have had more of a grind. However the great ones have picked up enough info in live games where someone that come from online games have no shot in hell against them in live game. I'm not speaking for the majority of live players, Only a very small percentage

Hey OP, are you Gabe Costner? Because based on everything you've told us so far that is the most likely person you can be. And if you are not Gabe, it would be nice to tell us now so someone's reputation doesn't get ruined by a gimmick troll attempt.

Just look at brian townsend, he was playing .25 .50 online few years ago, I believe his first live game 2 5nl at mirage in 07 maybe. He went on a huge rush pyramided to super high stakes. Do you think he would have been noticed grinding smaller games online? No

The fact that so many players are trying to pyramid up online, some of them will make it. Doesn't necessarily even mean they are best online, only that they are good & run really good. Because of size of games, they get notority. Many are starting to fade out already, even with the big rolls

Real reason for thread identified.

confirmed

Baudib, If you keep following me around I'm going to think you have a mancrush or something, Kinda creepy.

If you can disprove anything I've said , go right ahead, still waiting.

I may speak my mind, but one thing I am is honest

Exactly. Dwan (like many of the very best players in world today) began his career online and expanded it to live play. Something the OP w/ his artificial "live" vs "online" distinction claims is impossible.

There are very few "live" players anymore. Most spend at least a significant portion of their time online and as such the higher aggression styles of villians online have influenced their play.

If it weren't for online play the WSOP wouldn't be as aggressive as it is today. Hell WSOP 20 years ago looks about as aggressive as friendly home game today.

I never said that online players couldn't become great live players, As a matter of fact I said that any intelligent person with a great poker mindset could become good players. I also said that I was impressed with Tom dwan's live play. He isn't oblivious to watching tells live & I think as an intelligent guy he will only get better playing live.

What I did say was that a pure online player could never be the best player in the world. Because the best players in the world are aware that there are many more variables in live play & have learned to exploit them.

That doesn't mean that a great online player can't win money from 99% of the live players that are not good at reading tells.

I believe even Tom Dwan would probably agree with me that there are a ton more variables in live play just waiting to be discovered & exploited

I hope you are leveling because it got me to explain what a level is, but -

Basically a "level" is when you make statements you don't ACTUALLY believe - usually ones that are either blatantly factually incorrect, unreasonable opinions, over-the-top exaggerations or downright offensive statments, in an attempt to get others to debate/argue with you or provoke them into getting mad at you.

Think of it like saying something annoying at a live table to tilt someone.

From his other thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...-wsop-1066000/
Yeah seems like it.

Hi Gabe

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that this has anything to do with tells. It's completely results oriented. If anything, you've alluded to picking up on betting patterns that pushed you toward a call. Villain has a polarized range and you call down with a hand that probably doesn't even beat most of his bluff range and win. Do you mentally account for the times where you make this sick read, call, and get shown a pair or better, and then calculate how much your soulread is worth when incorporating all the times you are wrong?

And I'm really starting to believe this is just a gimmick. Confirm/deny you are Gabe Costner plz.

holy **** the guy might not actually be a level?


O_O

I'd say the burden is on you, I usually offer something of this nature when I step into a public arena making sweeping controversial claims.... some relevant numbers would be premium (not single instances cherry picked to fit your OP), but even your anecdotal evidence is pretty loosey goosey... you've got a theory, that's nice.. could be right; your time is better spent proving it than rehashing it every other post.

I wish I had skipped the OP entirely and just read this.

How about the large camp of very high stakes players that were never predominately live or online? And how about all the American players FORCED to be live players currently? Are they really live players just because they have no other choice?

I mean at the high stakes (100/200 - 400/800 limit) both predominately live and online players are successful, as well as players that could be classified as a mix of both.

so, you're saying it is much easier to make heaps of money online and that it's unfair to live players b/c they have to grind harder to move up stakes? LOL

lol it cracks me up that fish continue to make these threads

keep dreaming